Oral
Answers to
Questions

Northern Ireland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Shared Prosperity Fund

Ruth Jones: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the shared prosperity fund on Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: May I first wish the hon. Lady a very happy birthday? Do not worry—I can assure the House that I will not be singing.
The shared prosperity fund is a central pillar of the Government’s ambitious levelling-up agenda and will deliver for communities across Northern Ireland. The fund will inject around £127 million into Northern Ireland over the next three years to support communities, boost local business, and invest in people and skills. We will be working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and other key stakeholders to develop a plan that reflects the needs of Northern Ireland’s economy and society.

Ruth Jones: I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words.
According to the latest Asda Cebr income tracker, Northern Ireland has seen the largest relative fall in discretionary income, amounting to a huge drop of 13.3%. Living standards in Northern Ireland are under the most pressure in the UK, thanks to the Tory cost of living crisis, made in Downing Street. Does the Secretary of State agree that short-changing Northern Ireland with the shared prosperity fund, as in Wales, will only make things worse?

Brandon Lewis: Actually, we are boosting our investment in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Lady looks back over the past couple of years, to the previous spending review and the current one, she will see that we have just put in the largest block grant budget for Northern Ireland since devolution began in 1998, and that is aside from the extra investment we are making through the community renewal fund and the new deal, with £400 million for a range of infrastructure projects. We are making the biggest investment in Northern Ireland in decades, and I am proud of that. But she is right that we need to see productivity and employment continue to grow in Northern Ireland, as they have over the past  few months, so that we have a prosperous Northern Ireland that can build on the benefits of the Good Friday agreement.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State, Peter Kyle.

Peter Kyle: The Northern Ireland Finance Minister has said that the shared prosperity money for Northern Ireland is £90 million short of what was provided by the EU. The Conservative manifesto promised that the shared prosperity fund would “at a minimum match” the size of the EU structural funding it replaced. When can we expect the shortfall to be made up?

Brandon Lewis: It is worth the hon. Gentleman’s while having a clear look at all the figures going into Northern Ireland, because he is not making a like-for-like comparison. At the spending review we announced that the funding for the UK SPF will ramp up over the years, so that we get to a point where it will at least match the receipts of the EU structural funds. The EU regional development fund and the European social fund, on average, reaching about £1.5 billion a year—

Peter Kyle: When?

Brandon Lewis: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard later, because I answered that question about 30 seconds ago.

Peter Kyle: But is the Secretary of State aware that in the first round of levelling-up funding, Wales applied for and received almost 50% more than was first allocated, and for Scotland the figure was 10%, yet Northern Ireland got 3% less? Will he assure us today that the same will not happen with the shared prosperity fund, and that levelling up for Northern Ireland means more than just being hit by the same tax rises that are being inflicted on the rest of the UK by this Tory Government?

Brandon Lewis: Again, the hon. Gentleman needs to look at the figures in the round and realise that, as I have said, we have been making the biggest investment in Northern Ireland in decades—indeed, he may want to apologise for the previous Labour Government’s lack of funding for Northern Ireland. We now have the biggest sum of funding since devolution began in 1998. I saw for myself just this week the benefits that the levelling-up programme and the community renewal funding are making to community projects and businesses in Northern Ireland. That builds on the £2 billion from New Decade, New Approach and the £400 million new deal money, which will boost Northern Ireland. We will continue to do that to see Northern Ireland prosper in future.

Colum Eastwood: The Secretary of State will know that there is £300 million in a bank account in Stormont that cannot be spent because the Democratic Unionist party walked out of the Executive. He will also know that there are families in Northern Ireland who cannot heat their homes or feed their children. If the Executive cannot meet after the election, will he commit to working with me to get that money into people’s pockets as soon as possible?

Brandon Lewis: I agree in part with the hon. Gentleman —it does not happen all that often at the Dispatch Box—because I want to see that money being spent for  the benefit of people in Northern Ireland, but I disagree with his analysis of why it is not being spent. That is money from last year’s budget, and for a couple of years running now the current Department of Finance in Northern Ireland has consistently underspent. The Executive needs to find ways of ensuring that the money is properly spent.
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has also identified a real issue with the Northern Ireland protocol, because the UK has put substantial extra money into the pockets of people across the UK through VAT and fuel duty cuts, but we cannot do some of that directly in Northern Ireland because of the protocol. We have therefore made that money available to the Executive and I want to see it get to the people of Northern Ireland.

Northern Ireland Protocol

John Spellar: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on negotiations on the Northern Ireland Protocol.

Greg Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol on businesses in Northern Ireland. 
I meet Cabinet colleagues regularly to discuss Northern Ireland matters, including the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol does not command the confidence of a significant part of Northern Ireland’s population. This is about making sure that we get the balance right, and deliver on the balance in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. That agreement must have primacy, which we have been clear about on many occasions in this House. This is more than an issue of trade; it is about peace and stability, identity and the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.

John Spellar: On trade, I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the latest round of UK-US trade talks yesterday, and the progress on the US policy, and joint policy, of worker-centred trade deals. When we were in Washington last month, it was made absolutely clear to us in Congress that this would be derailed by what many there would see as the undermining of peace on the island of Ireland. They included in that not only the Good Friday agreement, but the Northern Ireland protocol. Is the right hon. Gentleman really going to put at risk a trade deal with the world’s biggest economy?

Brandon Lewis: Obviously, the focus of the UK Government’s work is to get trade deals that work for the United Kingdom as a whole United Kingdom. Northern Ireland wants to and should be able to benefit from those trade deals. We have also got to make sure—this should always be our prime focus—in a shared way with our friends in the US, who have a strong interest in the Good Friday agreement, and strong involvement in it and support for it, the primacy and delivery of the Good Friday agreement. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Good Friday agreement has three strands, and east-west is one of them.

Greg Smith: The cost of shipping from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is up 27%. Nine out of 10 traders in Northern Ireland are reported to face difficulties with six out of 10 forced to re-route goods because of  the protocol. The European Union’s interpretation of the protocol is damaging business now, it is undermining the Good Friday agreement now and it is threatening Northern Ireland’s rightful full place as part of our United Kingdom now, so does my right hon. Friend agree that the time to fix it is right now?

Brandon Lewis: My hon. Friend makes a very important and accurate point. The protocol and its implementation are having a profound impact, and change is needed urgently to resolve the issues that affect businesses, consumers and communities. I remind the House that this is the consistent position of the UK Government going back to March 2019, when the now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster outlined the importance of the Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General himself outlined that the Good Friday agreement will always have primacy for the UK Government. It is right that we deliver on that, and we will do.

Tonia Antoniazzi: After five months since the Government renewed negotiations with the European Union on the protocol, we have no visible progress, have we? Instead, we have a series of op-eds aimlessly threatening article 16. Now, bizarrely, the Prime Minister confirms on a visit to India that he is ready to tear apart his own deal, while expecting the Indian Government to trust him with a new one. Will the Government get a grip on treating negotiations with the respect they deserve, and use something called statecraft, and diligence, to find a settlement with the European Union?

Brandon Lewis: I have got used to listening to those on the Opposition Front Bench defending the European Union against the people of the UK on a regular basis, but that was quite something. The reality is that the EU’s protocol implementation —and we are not seeing in the negotiations the flexibility from the EU that we need to see to find a resolution—is detrimentally affecting the people of Northern Ireland. I would respectfully say to the hon. Lady that she should think about standing up for the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the UK. That is what we will do to defend and protect the Good Friday agreement and resolve these issues.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Simon Hoare: In those discussions with Cabinet colleagues, will my right hon. Friend commit to pointing out that there would be a terrible hypocrisy if, having pointed out to Russia and her allies the importance of abiding by an international rules-based system, we were then to countenance breaking our internationally agreed obligations?

Brandon Lewis: Our position has been consistent, whether set out by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or the Attorney General in March 2019. The Secretary of State pointed out that if
“the objectives of the protocol were no longer being proportionately served by its provisions because, for example, it was no longer protecting the 1998 agreement in all its dimensions”—[Official Report, 12 March 2019; Vol. 656, c. 289]—
the UK could seek agreement to end the provisions, which would be, for obvious reasons, no longer necessary to achieve the protocol’s objectives. The objectives of  the protocol are very clear and they respect the Good Friday agreement. At the moment, that is under massive threat in all three strands, and we need to make sure we are protecting the peace and prosperity that we have seen in Northern Ireland thanks to the Good Friday agreement.

Richard Thomson: Another week, another rattle of the sabre by threatening to deploy article 16. I wonder who the Secretary of State imagines is impressed by such behaviour, apart from a number of hardliners in a Conservative and Unionist party that seems increasingly incapable of conserving or unifying anything, least of all itself.

Brandon Lewis: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might want to have a closer look at what is happening in Northern Ireland, in the sense that there is a view across all parties that we need to resolve the issues in the protocol. Some parties have stronger views than others about what those issues are. Nobody in the Unionist community supports the protocol any more, so it does not have consent across the communities. We no longer have a First or Deputy First Minister, and we no longer have a North South Ministerial Council. That is the Good Friday agreement under threat. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman stands for, but I stand for defending the Good Friday agreement and defending the United Kingdom, its people and its residents. We will do that.

Andrew Murrison: In trying to find an alternative to the Northern Ireland protocol that has cross-community support, what note has the Secretary of State taken of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report of March 2019? The report made it very clear that there are acceptable technological, technical and procedural ways of dealing with the border that do not involve onerous checks of the sort that we see now.

Brandon Lewis: My right hon. Friend correctly points out that there are now technical solutions. We have tried to talk to the EU about them, and we want the EU to show flexibility and recognise that there are solutions that can work today to deliver what is required in a way that works in Northern Ireland and protects the single market. We understand and respect the EU’s desire to protect their single market. For us, it is about the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: If we are going to use the situation in Ukraine as an example, does the Secretary of State agree that the last piece of advice we would ever give to a sovereign nation such as Ukraine is to cede control of part of its territory to a foreign entity? And yet those who advocate the protocol advocate precisely that—that a large degree of the laws and regulations in Northern Ireland should be imposed by the European Union, and that I and my colleagues should have no say whatsoever in how they are drawn up. The Secretary of State and the Government last year published a Command Paper, indicating steps that they would take to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. When will the Government take those steps?

Brandon Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, not least because in the vision outlined in its opening pages, the protocol makes it clear that we will not disrupt the everyday lives of people and their communities, and that we will respect the internal market of the United Kingdom and all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. Those are the effective vision statements that we are determined to deliver on. As I said, we will keep everything on the table. We want to get a resolution, by agreement with the EU, that respects all aspects of the Good Friday agreement. If we cannot do that, we will need to take action to ensure we deliver on the peace and prosperity of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Government are a co-guarantor of the Belfast agreement. The Secretary of State will know that since the introduction of the protocol, the North South Ministerial Council is no longer functioning, and we do not have a fully functioning Northern Ireland Executive. The Assembly is limited in what it can do, and the east-west relationship is at its weakest point since probably 1998. The Government therefore need to send out a clear message to Washington and others that the protocol is incompatible with the aim of maintaining Northern Ireland’s political stability and political institutions, because it changes Northern Ireland’s constitutional status without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, and that is not acceptable.

Brandon Lewis: I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. We find ourselves in a ridiculous situation where the EU’s position on implementing the protocol means that the very document that was designed to help to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is the thing that is putting it most at risk. We recognise that, and we are very clear that that needs to be resolved.
As I say, we take nothing off the table. We want to get an agreement with the EU, and we want them to recognise the challenges that this is creating for businesses and communities in Northern Ireland. We are clear that we need to, and we will, resolve this issue. If we cannot do so by agreement, we will have to do what is right for the people of the United Kingdom and, obviously, the people of Northern Ireland.

Levelling Up White Paper

Alun Cairns: What assessment he has made of the impact of the “Levelling Up the United Kingdom” White Paper on communities in Northern Ireland.

Conor Burns: The “Levelling Up” White Paper sets out clearly and compellingly the Government’s mission to spread prosperity and opportunity to every part of our United Kingdom. Alongside the £617 million in city and growth deal funding, the levelling up, community renewal and community ownership funds have invested £62 million to date in the people and places most in need in Northern Ireland as a demonstration of our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.

Alun Cairns: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing 11 successful levelling up fund applications? Does he agree that the levelling-up agenda, together with the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund   and some of the other funds that he mentioned, is an excellent example of how the might of the UK economy can be shared throughout every nation of the UK?

Conor Burns: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The levelling-up fund and our commitment to Northern Ireland are unshakeable. The levelling-up fund is yet another demonstration of why Northern Ireland’s place is integrally as part of the United Kingdom. I am looking forward this afternoon to joining the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien), at the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs to hear him explain the vision for the next phase of levelling up in Northern Ireland.

Women's Services

Rosie Duffield: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources for women’s services in Northern Ireland.

Diana R. Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of resources for women’s services in Northern Ireland.

Brandon Lewis: Women in Northern Ireland cannot currently access the same basic healthcare support that is available in the rest of the UK. This is unacceptable. I have committed to return to Parliament directly following the Assembly elections in May and, if necessary, we will make regulations to ensure that services are commissioned.

Rosie Duffield: I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation that he will act on abortion services in Northern Ireland after the elections in May, but does he understand that it is hard for women to take his word at face value after so many missed deadlines on this important issue, which will have had real health impacts? Will he please put on record that he intends to lay the regulations that he has prepared before Parliament within a month of the Queen’s Speech?

Brandon Lewis: I recognise the hon. Lady’s support for this policy and for women in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland must make the services available to women and girls. If it does not, as I have said, I made a commitment to the House on 24 March via a written ministerial statement that I will make regulations to resolve this unacceptable situation that must be fixed for the people and the ladies of Northern Ireland.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s assurances that he will act if necessary after the Queen’s Speech and the elections in Northern Ireland. Does he have a date in mind when women in Northern Ireland will be able to access this essential reproductive healthcare service? When will they actually be able to get the service that this House voted for over two years ago?

Brandon Lewis: I am sure that the right hon. Lady recognises that this has primarily been an issue for the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver on. I have been  clear: they have not done that, that is not good enough and we need to resolve that issue. We are already recruiting the team from my Department to put the commissioning in place. I will return to the House soon after the May elections if that has not been progressed by the Department of Health to lay the regulations to ensure that these services are provided.

Northern Ireland Legacy Matters

Dan Jarvis: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on his legislative proposals on Northern Ireland legacy matters.

Brandon Lewis: The Government’s core and shared objectives in addressing the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past are to implement an effective investigation and information recovery process that will provide answers for families, deliver on our commitments to those who served in Northern Ireland and help society move forward.

Dan Jarvis: Consensus is historically difficult to achieve in Northern Ireland but when it comes to dealing with the past I am sure that we can all agree that the current process is failing those who have suffered, so we need a new way of delivering justice, and soon. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Bill or any proposals he brings forward must not in any way weaken or undermine our commitment to international law?

Brandon Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I appreciate his support on a point that I have made consistently: the current system is failing everybody. That is why we need to bring forward proposals that work for the people of Northern Ireland, for the victims as well as those who served so admirably in Northern Ireland to protect life and country. I can assure him that we are absolutely determined that this will be article 2-compliant. It has to be for it to be effective for everybody.

Carla Lockhart: The sacrifice made by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, GC, is one that I and many across Northern Ireland will never forget. Over 300 officers were killed and 9,000 injured at the hands, mainly, of the IRA. A recent report by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland laden with innuendo has caused great hurt among former RUC officers and families who lost loved ones. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the service and sacrifice of the RUC, the Ulster Defence Regiment and all those who donned a uniform are not besmirched under the auspices of addressing the legacy of the past?

Brandon Lewis: Yes, absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a very important point. There are so many people—hundreds of thousands—across the RUC and the armed forces who put their own lives at risk to protect others, and there is a huge difference between those who went out every day to protect life and those who went out determined to destroy lives. There can never be a  moral equivalence; we would never accept one. She is absolutely right.

Platinum Jubilee

Simon Baynes: What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Andrew Bowie: What plans his Department has to mark the platinum jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen.

Conor Burns: The Northern Ireland Office is working collaboratively with partners on a range of proposals to celebrate Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee. I am pleased to tell the House that next week we will unveil a jubilee hamper, bringing together the very best of Northern Ireland’s food and drink produce, which we will be presenting to Windsor Castle, Clarence House and Kensington Palace. We want the jubilee in Northern Ireland to bring communities together and celebrate the amazing personal achievement of Her Majesty the Queen.

Simon Baynes: My right hon. Friend has touched on the deep respect and admiration that everyone across the United Kingdom has for Her Majesty the Queen—something that we see in Northern Ireland and that I see in Wales, particularly in my constituency of Clwyd South. Does he agree that that is amply demonstrated not only by the plans that he will outline but by the many street parties and local events being planned by communities large and small across the UK?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this will be an event and a weekend that brings all citizens of our United Kingdom together in celebration as we collectively salute the service of Her Majesty the Queen.

Andrew Bowie: We should never forget, of course, that Her Majesty the Queen was among thousands who lost close family members during the troubles and that, by her actions, she has supported the efforts towards peace and reconciliation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee is a fantastic opportunity for communities across Northern Ireland to come together not only to mark this important milestone but to recognise how much progress has been made towards peace and prosperity during her reign?

Conor Burns: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Northern Ireland we are determined that the celebration of this historic event will bring communities together. I have acknowledged previously in this House the words of the leader of Sinn Féin, who extended her congratulations to Her Majesty, saying that
“70 years is quite some achievement.”
This jubilee can be celebrated across communities and in every part of our United Kingdom, and we are determined that it will be.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister will recall that at Northern Ireland questions six weeks ago, he said that
“we will be marking this jubilee with full throttle, joy and celebration,”
and that he and the Secretary of State would be
“coming forward with some very innovative ideas”.—[Official Report, 9 March 2022; Vol. 710, c. 311.]
So far we have a hamper and the potential for an annual garden party. I do not want our celebrations to be lacklustre; I want the NIO to bring a level of sparkle and joy to the platinum jubilee celebrations. Is there more to the plans the Minister will unveil next week?

Conor Burns: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I, and the whole of the Northern Ireland Office, will be sparkling throughout the jubilee celebrations. We will be unveiling very shortly another very exciting proposal—a competition in Northern Ireland’s schools for something to be presented to Her Majesty on behalf of the young people of Northern Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will not be disappointed, and I say that knowing that that is a very high bar to cross with the Democratic Unionist party.

Nationality and Borders Bill: Implementation

Marion Fellows: What recent discussions he has had with the (a) Northern Ireland Executive and (b) Irish Government on plans for implementing the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill.

Brandon Lewis: The Government continue our close co-operation with both the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on immigration matters, including on the Nationality and Borders Bill. We will continue to work, as we always do, to ensure that we are protecting the Good Friday agreement and the common travel area.

Marion Fellows: The Nationality and Borders Bill will grant UK Ministers draconian powers to strip UK citizens of their citizenship so long as they can claim citizenship in another country. As most Northern Irish people can claim Irish citizenship, Northern Ireland’s people are threatened in a way no other people in the UK are; they could be stripped of their citizenship without warning or notice. How can the Secretary of State justify that?

Brandon Lewis: I thought the hon. Lady was going to outline all the excellent work that the SNP will do in Scotland to start finally taking part in the asylum scheme. At the moment, only one council in Scotland is doing that. Regarding the Nationality and Borders Bill, we will continue to deliver on the Good Friday agreement and respect all its parts, including people’s right to be Northern Irish, Irish, or Northern Irish and British—something we have always done and will continue to do.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is the end of Northern Ireland questions. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Sally-Ann Hart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 April.

Boris Johnson: As this will be the final PMQs of this Session, I wanted to remind the House of what we have achieved. More than 20 Acts of Parliament have been passed, including our National Insurance Contributions Act 2022, which will increase the thresholds from July and be worth an average of £330 a year—the largest single personal tax cut for a decade—and our Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 to respond to Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. We hope by the end of the Session to have passed our Nationality and Borders Bill, to take control of our immigration system; our Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, to make our streets safer; and our Health and Care Bill, to reduce bureaucracy and help to cut the covid backlogs. Only today, new figures show that already, since 2019, we have recruited over 13,500 additional police—well ahead of our 12,000 target. Those police are already on our streets, making our communities safer. We are focusing on delivering the people’s priorities, and there is plenty more to come in the Queen’s Speech on 10 May.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Sally-Ann Hart: As a proud maritime nation, the United Kingdom has long relied on its coastal communities to help to deliver national prosperity, but today too many of them face shared challenges and disproportionately high levels of deprivation. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that to ensure that beautiful constituencies such as mine—Hastings and Rye—can properly unleash their full potential, a specific and targeted Government strategy focusing on coastal communities is needed; and will he meet me to discuss this?

Boris Johnson: Yes indeed, and if my hon. Friend looks at the levelling-up White Paper she will find that it is clearly directed at enhancing and improving the lives of people in our coastal communities, tilting resource and attention to those fantastic communities. I will make sure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister as soon as possible.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I know the Prime Minister has whipped his Back Benchers to scream and shout, and that is fine, but I hope he has also sent a clear message that there is no place for sexism and misogyny or for looking down on people because of where they come from, in his party, in this House, or in modern Britain.
Next year, the UK is set for the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7. Why is the Prime Minister failing to manage the economy?

Boris Johnson: First, in response to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about sexism and misogyny, let me say that I exchanged messages with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) over the weekend, and I will repeat what I said to her. There can be absolutely no place for such behaviour or such expression in this House, and we should treat each other with the respect that each other deserves.
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about the economy, yes of course it is true that there is a crisis of inflation around the world, but this Government are tackling it in all the ways you would expect, Mr Speaker. We are helping people with the cost of their energy—putting in far more than Labour would—and we have a British energy security strategy to undo the mistakes made by previous Labour Governments. Above all, we made sure that we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year, which would not have been possible if we had listened to him—frankly, had we listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, we would not have come out of lockdown in July last year. Never forget that no Labour Government have left office with unemployment lower than when they came in.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister sounds like the Comical Ali of the cost of living crisis. He pretends the economy is booming and where there are problems they are global, but in the real world our growth is set to be slower than every G20 country except one—Russia—and our inflation is going to be double that in the rest of the G7. Does he think that denying the facts staring him in the face makes things better or worse for working people?

Boris Johnson: The facts are, as the International Monetary Fund has said, that the UK came out of covid faster than anybody else. That is why we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year. That would not have happened if we had listened to Captain Hindsight. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman studies its forecasts, he will see that we will return to being the fastest by 2024 and the fastest in 2025. That is what the IMF forecast says—read it. He asks about working people. This is the Government, this is the party that supports working people, unlike Labour, with the biggest increase—[Interruption.] Yes, I will tell them what is going up: the living wage is going up by record amounts, employment is going up by record amounts. Five hundred thousand more people—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it. Let me give them the figures: 500,000 more people in paid employment now than there were before the pandemic began and youth unemployment at or near record lows. Under Labour, just to remind everybody, youth unemployment rose by 45%.

Keir Starmer: These must be the Oxford Union debating skills we have been hearing so much about: failing to answer the question, rambling incoherently, throwing in garbled metaphors. Powerful stuff, Prime Minister. Here is the problem: it is not just his words that are complacent; it is his actions as well. The cost of living crisis was blindingly obvious months ago, but he said that worries about inflation were unfounded and he backed a tax-hiking Budget. Does he think that his choice to be the only leader in the G7 to raise taxes during a cost of living crisis has made things better or worse for working people?

Boris Johnson: As I have just explained to the House, and will repeat once more, this Government and our Chancellor cut taxes on working people. The national insurance contribution went down by an average of £330. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about the health and care levy—maybe that is what he is droning on about—that is what is enabling us to pay for  50,000 more nurses and to pay for clearing the covid backlog. How tragic, how pitiful that the party of Bevan should now be opposed to that investment in the NHS.

Keir Starmer: The Prime Minister is an ostrich, perfectly happy keeping his head in the sand. Working people are worried about paying their bills. They are spending less and cutting back. That is bad for business and bad for growth. Working people are looking for help, but this week millions will look at their payslip and see a tax rise with his fingerprints all over it. Does he think that his 15th tax rise has made things better or worse for working people?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing for working people is not only lifting the living wage by a record amount and helping people on universal credit with a £1,000 tax cut, but cutting national insurance contributions and lifting the threshold so that, on average, people pay £330 less. What we are also doing is taking our country and our economy forward, investing in our NHS, which is a priority for the people of this country—unlike for the Labour party—and ensuring that we have record creation of jobs. That is what matters: high-wage, high-skill jobs. Half a million more—[Interruption.] Labour Members do not care about jobs; we do. We believe in high-wage, high-skill jobs and that is the answer for the economy.

Keir Starmer: It is as if the Prime Minister is only just waking up to the cost of living crisis. And his big idea: fewer MOTs—it actually makes the cones hotline sound visionary and inspirational.
North sea oil producers are making so much unexpected profit that they call themselves a “cash machine”. That cash could be used to keep energy bills down. Instead, the Prime Minister chooses to protect their profits, let household bills rocket and slap taxes on working people who are earning a living. Does he think that that choice has made things better or worse for working people?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is making things better for working people than his plans would by a mile. We are putting in more to support people with their energy costs than he would with his new tax on business. We are putting in £9.1 billion, with an immediate £150 cut in people’s council tax. Labour’s thing raises only £6.6 billion, and it clobbers the very businesses that we need to invest in energy to bring the prices down for people across this country. Clean, green energy—the wind farms, the hydrogen that this country needs. What this Government are also doing is reversing the tragic, historic mistake of the Labour party in refusing to invest in nuclear. We are going to have a nuclear reactor every year, not a nuclear reactor every decade, which is what we got under Labour.

Keir Starmer: So the Conservatives are the party of excess oil and gas profits and we are the party of working people. This Tory Government have had their head in the sand throughout the cost of living crisis. First, they let prices get out of control and then they denied it was happening. They failed to do anything about it and then they made it worse with higher taxes. Because of the Prime Minister’s choices, we are set to have the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7.
A vote for Labour next week is a vote for a very different set of choices. We would ask oil and gas companies to pay their fair share and reduce energy costs. We would not hammer working people with the worst possible tax at the worst possible time. We would insulate homes to get bills down. And we would close the tax avoidance schemes that have helped the Prime Minister’s Chancellor—where is he?—to reduce his family’s tax bill while putting everyone else’s up. That is a proper plan for the economy, so why does the Prime Minister not get on with it and finally make choices that make things better, not worse, for working people?

Boris Johnson: I have listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman over many weeks and many years, and this guy is doomed to be a permanent spectator. We have a plan to fix the NHS and fix social care; the Opposition have no plan. We have a plan to fix our borders with our deal with Rwanda; they have no plan. We have a plan to take our economy forward; they have no plan.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the elections in a few days’ time. Let me remind him that everywhere we look at a Labour administration, it is a bankrupt shambles. Labour-run Hammersmith Council spent £27,000 on EU flags three years after the referendum. Labour-run Nottingham Council—bankrupt because of its investment in some communist energy plan, of the kind that he now favours; he should apologise for it. Labour-run Croydon—bankrupt because of its dodgy property deals. And never forget Labour-run Britain in 2010—bankrupt because of what the Labour Government did, and they said that they had “no money” left.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks at council tax—he boasts that he lives in Islington or Camden, or somewhere like that—he should contrast neighbouring Westminster, which has the lowest council tax in the country and better services, too. That is the difference between Labour and Conservative across the country. Vote Conservative on 5 May.

Nigel Mills: Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the huge step forward this week in the regeneration of Heanor town centre in my constituency with the successful purchase of the run-down old grammar school building, using the Government’s towns fund money? Does he agree that that is exactly the sort of local delivery that people should be voting on in next week’s local election?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is entirely right: those are the issues on which people will be voting. As I said, they will be voting for better value, better services and lower council tax, and I hope they will be voting Conservative.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the leader of the SNP.

Ian Blackford: May I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about the absolutely disgusting misogyny and sexism witnessed by the deputy leader of the Labour party? What has happened over the past few days should shame us all.
This morning, the Trussell Trust confirmed that 830,000 children across the UK are being left to depend on emergency food parcels. Instead of convening a Tory talking shop at Cabinet, the Prime Minister should be  acting to help those children and help families through the cost of living emergency. If he is genuinely looking for ideas to tackle this Tory-made crisis, he would be wiser to look beyond his Cabinet colleagues, who, of course, know that he will not be there for very much longer.
As a parting gift, here is an idea for the Prime Minister. The Scottish Government have introduced, and now doubled, the game-changing Scottish child payment of at least £1,040 a year, helping those families who are being hit the hardest. Is the Prime Minister prepared to match that payment across the UK to help families through this emergency?

Boris Johnson: Of course it is important to do everything we can to help families in a tough time. That is why we have massively increased the funds available to local councils to support families facing particular hardship. The holiday activities fund, now running at £200 million, is there as well. We will do everything we can to support families throughout this period when we are dealing with the aftershocks of the covid pandemic. If I may say so—the right hon. Gentleman may not appreciate my pointing it out, but it is true—I think that this is another example of the vital strength of our economic union, and of the importance of support from the UK Treasury, which is what he gets.

Ian Blackford: My goodness! We have children facing poverty, and the Scottish Government are responding with the child payment—by the way, it will increase again later this year—but we get nothing but empty words from the Prime Minister. We heard plenty of desperate pre-election waffle, but I will take it as a no: there is no support for hard-pressed families. It is clearer by the day that the Prime Minister’s supposed plan to fight the Tory-made cost of living crisis is not only non-fiscal, but non-existent.
I will try again. Here are three other ideas for the Prime Minister that would help families with their soaring costs right now: scrapping his national insurance tax hike, reversing the Tory cuts to universal credit and matching Scotland’s 6% benefits rise instead of imposing a real-terms cut. Those are three things that would make a difference to millions of people. Has the Prime Minister come to terms with the reality that if he fails to act now, the voters will send him and his sleaze-ridden party a message by voting SNP next Thursday?

Boris Johnson: We are helping families up and down the country with the universal credit taper. The right hon. Gentleman asks about universal credit; we are tapering it so that working people get another £1,000 in their pocket. We are helping families in the way that I have described, and I remind the House that under this Government there are now far fewer children in workless households than there were before this Government came in. That is because we believe in championing work, championing employment and helping people into high-wage, high-skill jobs. That is what counts—and as for our respective political longevities, I would not like to bet on him outlasting me.

Laura Farris: Last April, the West Berkshire child and adolescent mental health services received an additional £120 million to tackle waiting times for autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnoses. Twelve months on, it  has outlined a general ambition to reduce delays but has set no targets or timescales for improvement, and some parents are still waiting two years for their children to be seen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when a significant amount of public money is invested, people have a right to know how and when services will be improved, and will he support my campaign for a 12-month maximum wait for any family in West Berkshire seeking a diagnosis of this kind?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is running a great campaign, and she is absolutely right: the Government are indeed providing funds to improve autism and learning disability services, but it is also important for people to receive the diagnoses and assessments that they need within 12 weeks, and the measures in our Health and Care Bill will improve local accountability for those services.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: The Road Haulage Association has confirmed that the cost of moving goods from this part of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland has risen by 27% in the first year of the operation of the protocol. The Irish sea border is harming our economy and undermining political stability in Northern Ireland. Next week, the people of Northern Ireland will go to the polls to elect an Assembly. What hope can the Prime Minister give them that the protocol will be removed and Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market will be restored?

Boris Johnson: I think the whole House will want to support the balance and symmetry of the Good Friday agreement. That is what really matters, and it is a great legacy for all of us. It is vital for the protocol—or the arrangements that we have in Northern Ireland—to command the support of all sides, and that is what this Government will undertake to ensure.

Ben Bradley: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for the additional funds and support that Mansfield has received in recent years for education and skills, for tackling crime, and for our town centre, which will be bidding for the levelling-up fund this spring, but Mansfield residents now want to see the tangible outcomes of those capital funds for the town centre. Will my right hon. Friend look seriously at how we might help to accelerate the often lengthy process of moving from successful funding announcement to spades in the ground, so that our residents can benefit from those investments?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Mansfield and, indeed, the wider area. I am delighted that Mansfield was awarded £12 million as part of the towns fund. I cannot endorse any specific project, but the next round is coming up shortly and will be announced in the autumn.

Caroline Lucas: Fifty-six Members of this House are under investigation for sexual misconduct, and that includes three members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet. He has just rightly said that there can be no place for sexism and misogyny in the House. Can he now confirm that he considers sexual harassment—unlike, apparently, bullying and lying—to be grounds for dismissal under the ministerial code?

Boris Johnson: Of course sexual harassment is intolerable, and it is quite right that Members should now have a procedure whereby they can bring it to the attention of the House authorities. I think that that is a good thing, and of course sexual harassment is grounds for dismissal.

Anthony Browne: Financial scams have increased dramatically in recent years and are now the most common form of crime, harming millions of families every year. Most of them are made possible by online platforms such as Facebook and Google, which make vast profits from advertising fraudsters. Does my right hon. Friend agree that companies that profit from promoting fraud should help to pay the costs of fraud, and online platforms should compensate the victims whom they have helped to create, and will he work with me to achieve that end?

Boris Johnson: I have known my hon. Friend for many years, and this is typical of his creativity. We will be looking at exactly how we could make that kind of measure work. I think it is important for us to proceed with care and get it right, and I will ensure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the relevant Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport as soon as possible.

Vicky Foxcroft: Hundreds and thousands of people are still shielding. They are living in fear of covid, as they know that the vaccine has not mounted an antibody response for them and they remain at increased risk of serious illness or death. There is hope, though. Evusheld gives immunocompromised people 83% protection for six months. Sadly, the Government have not ordered any of it, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency giving its approval on 17 March. I appreciate that the Prime Minister might not have all the details to hand, so will he meet me to talk about this life-saving and life-changing drug?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Lady very much; she is absolutely right to speak up for those who are shielding and who are anxious. We are doing everything we can to protect and reassure them. On Evusheld, we are evaluating it at the moment, but I will ensure that she has a meeting as soon as possible with the Department of Health.

Felicity Buchan: My Conservative council in Kensington and Chelsea charges £500 less council tax than neighbouring Labour Camden, and it has four times as many bin collections. You have not misheard: £500 less; four times as many. Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone who wants low council tax and good services needs to vote Conservative?

Boris Johnson: Do I agree with my hon. Friend? There is not a syllable with which any sensible person in this country could possibly dissent.

Jim Shannon: Last week, a headline in not normally a paper that I read—stated: “Northern Ireland could be forced to follow EU rules on Covid tests”. The Chancellor has told the House that Northern Ireland could not benefit from moves to scrap VAT on energy efficiency  measures because of the protocol, and now the protocol’s restrictions threaten a shortage of covid tests in Northern Ireland. The financial costs of the protocol can be measured, but the true cost, in relation to VAT, medicines, covid tests and damaged relationships, is much, much greater. When are the Government and my Prime Minister going to restore our place in the United Kingdom?

Boris Johnson: I thank the hon. Gentleman very much. There is clearly an economic cost to the protocol. That is also now turning into a political problem, and an imbalance in sentiment about it. We need to rectify that balance for the sake of the Good Friday agreement, on which this country depends.

Paul Holmes: By 2025, Liberal Democrat Eastleigh Borough Council will have a debt of £650 million, which is £6,300 for every resident in Eastleigh. Does the Prime Minister think it acceptable for this council to become a speculative property developer, and what advice would he give to my constituents next week if they want to put a stop to this casino council and its profligate ways?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is completely right about Eastleigh Borough Council and the debts it has run up. I cannot even see the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his place here. He is not even delivering value for money for his own constituents.

Kate Osamor: The cost of household food bills is set to rise by £271 this year as prices soar. The supermarkets are lowering their prices to help customers who are struggling to buy food. The Resolution Foundation has reported that 1.3 million low-income Britons will be pushed into absolute poverty by the cost of living crisis, but this Government are doing nothing to protect people who are struggling. If the supermarkets are stepping in to protect people’s pockets, what will the Prime Minister do?

Boris Johnson: What we have done in just the last few months is put in £22 million to help people with the cost of living. I want to pay tribute to those businesses that are now trying to protect consumers from the impact of the global inflation crisis. The fact is that many, many businesses now have the cash reserves not to take prices, as they put it, but to shield consumers from the impact, and I hope that they do so.

Mel Stride: I was recently contacted by my counterpart, the Chair of the Ukrainian Treasury Committee, with some ideas on how we can further tighten the screw on the Russian economy, particularly through the international tax regime. I was, of course, able to affirm the full support for the Ukrainian people right across this House. The gentleman concerned also knows the work that my right hon. Friend has done to promote sanctions internationally, but will the Prime Minister meet me to consider these new proposals to make sure that no stone is left unturned in facing up to Putin’s vile regime?

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he and his Select Committee have been doing in this area to tighten the screw on Putin’s regime. UK companies have already shown that they think very carefully about investments and doing business with  Putin’s Russia. As my right hon. Friend knows, we banned all new outward investment in Russia, but I am very happy to have a meeting as soon as possible to make sure these further ideas are transmitted to the Government.

Jeff Smith: Last night we learned that the Home Secretary put the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) on an expert panel offering advice on sexual exploitation. At the time, he was under police investigation following allegations that he had assaulted a minor, of which he has since been found guilty. He sat on the panel long after the Conservative party received a complaint from his victim. Is the Prime Minister not ashamed that his party did not take the victim seriously and put someone who abused a minor in such an important position? Does he wish to take this opportunity to apologise to them?

Boris Johnson: I believe the Home Office has already made a statement about it. If there is any further comment to make, it will make a statement.

Aaron Bell: Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council has secured millions of pounds of Government investment for our high street, but we have a problem with persistent antisocial behaviour on the high street. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister therefore welcome  the recent appointment of a new chief constable for Staffordshire and a new borough commander for Newcastle, and the fact that Newcastle will get its own dedicated response unit? Will he also set out what further measures the Government are taking to combat crime and antisocial behaviour?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is an avid champion for his constituents. He might have missed what I said earlier, but there are now 13,576 more police on the streets of this country as a result of the actions taken by this Government. There are also tougher sentences, which were opposed by the party opposite. We are cracking down on drugs gangs, whereas the Labour party is soft on drugs. I think the Leader of the Opposition said he would decriminalise drugs and that he did not want people found with class A drugs to face prison sentences—I think I heard him say that.
Of course, we are also cracking down on cross-channel gangs that risk the lives of migrants in the English channel. We are cracking down on them and, as far as I know, the Labour party would scrap the economic and migration partnership with Rwanda. We have a plan; they do not.

Hilary Benn: Some 4.5 million people pay for their gas and electricity through a prepayment meter. They are already paying more for their energy than direct debit customers, and the number of people who are disconnecting themselves because they have run out of money for the meter is increasing. What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that all our constituents have a right to light and warmth?

Boris Johnson: We are working with Ofgem and all the companies to ensure that we protect people at this difficult time. We are also making sure that we  support people, and not just through the cold weather payment and the winter fuel payment. By giving £0.5 billion more to councils, we are making sure that we look after the types of people to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, who are finding it particularly tough. We will do everything we can to shield the people of this country as we get through the aftershocks of covid and deal with a global inflation problem.

Ben Everitt: Within the past hour or so, it has been reported that some 287 Members of this House have been sanctioned by the Russian state. I am sure nobody here is rushing to change their summer holiday plans, but perhaps the Prime Minister will assure us that he will continue his excellent relationship with President Zelensky and continue to provide the Ukrainian people and military with the support they need.

Boris Johnson: It is no disrespect to those who have not been sanctioned when I say that all those 287 should regard it as a badge of honour. What we will do is keep up our robust and principled support for the Ukrainian people and for their right to protect their lives and families, and to defend themselves. That is what this country is doing and it has the overwhelming support of the whole House.

Daisy Cooper: Today, a court has found that the Government acted unlawfully when their policies led to the discharge of untested patients from hospitals to care homes at the start of the pandemic. The court also found no evidence that the former Health Secretary addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission, despite the Government insisting at the time that a “protective ring” had been thrown around care homes.
The Government have once again been found to have broken the law. Will the Prime Minister apologise to the families of the thousands and thousands of people who died in care homes in the first half of 2020? Will he also apologise to care workers for the shameful comment that he made in July 2020, when he said that
“too many care homes didn’t…follow…procedures in the way that they could have”?

Boris Johnson: Of course, I want to renew my apologies and sympathies to all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic—people who lost loved ones in care homes. I want to remind the House of what an incredibly difficult time that was and how difficult that decision was. We did not know very much about the disease. The point I was trying to make, to which the hon. Lady refers, is that the thing we did not know in particular was that covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was. I wish we had known more about that at the time. As for the ruling she mentions, we will study it and of course respond further in due course.

Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt), the Interfax news agency announced less than an hour ago, in Moscow, that the foreign ministry of the Russian Government will now sanction 287 Members and former Members of the House of Commons—from  both sides of this House. I am proud to say that both you and I are on that list. Are you able to give any advice to right hon. and hon. Members of the House of Commons regarding this?

Lindsay Hoyle: Normally I would not, but I think this is an important matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me know at the start of questions that he wanted to catch my eye. Although the issue he has raised is not strictly a point of order, I am of course alarmed to hear what he has reported to the Chamber. Rather than give a knee-jerk reaction now, I am sure that the Government will rapidly be assessing the implications of this move. I am therefore asking them to keep me and the House authorities briefed on this very important issue, and I shall make sure that Members are kept informed as appropriate.

Chris Bryant: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am distressed that I am not on the list—I am also slightly surprised. I can assume only that the Russian Federation accepts that everything I  have said about President Putin over the past few years is true: he is a barbarous villain and we must make sure that he fails.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure the hon. Gentleman may now have got himself put on that list.

Mike Amesbury: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) incorrectly claimed that council tax is lower in Conservative councils; according to the Government’s own live figures, the average council tax bill for a Conservative council is £1,642 while the average for a Labour council is £1,313. So, Conservative council tax bills—this is a fact—are £329 higher than Labour council tax bills. May I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how to ensure those facts are put on record?

Lindsay Hoyle: We are not going to continue a debate from an earlier question, and the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question, but I do hope he let the hon. Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) know he was going to mention her in the Chamber; if not, I am sure he will drop her a line.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about delays at HM Passport Office.

Kevin Foster: Prior to the pandemic, HM Passport Office routinely processed approximately 7 million passports each year. Over the last two years the necessary restrictions on international travel meant only 4 million people applied for a British passport in 2020 and 5 million in 2021. This left about 5 million unrenewed passports.
In 2022 many of the customers who delayed their application are returning. We expect this year to deal with 9.5 million British passport applications and have been planning for this. Throughout the pandemic, HM Passport Office prepared to serve an unprecedented number of customers. Alongside technical solutions, staffing numbers have been increased by 500 since last April and we are in the process of recruiting a further 700. These preparations ensured passport applications could be processed in record numbers, last month seeing the highest total for any month on record, with HM Passport Office completing the processing of over 1 million applications, 13% higher than the previous record output.
Inevitably, however, faced with this level of demand applications will take longer. Consequently, in April 2021 guidance was changed to clearly advise customers to allow up to 10 weeks to get their passport, in recognition that a surge would arrive as international travel returned. The vast majority of applications continue to be processed within 10 weeks; in fact, over 90% of applications were issued within 6 weeks between January and March 2022, despite the much-increased demand. HM Passport Office also provides an expedited service where an application from the UK has been with it for longer than 10 weeks; 42 applications have been expedited under these criteria since 31 March.
With greater volumes of applications which are in the system for longer, levels of customer contact have inevitably risen. We recognise that difficulties in contacting HM Passport Office will cause concern for those wanting assurances about their applications. In response, the provider of the passport advice line, Teleperformance, has been urgently tasked to add additional staff as its current performance is unacceptable.
To finish, the team at HMPO are dealing with record numbers of applications and delivering a record level of output to match this. Their hard work will enable millions of British citizens to enjoy a holiday abroad this summer, and I thank them for that.

Yvette Cooper: From listening to the Minister we would think that actually everything is all right, but my constituents fear their honeymoon may now be wrecked because their passports have not arrived even though they applied in plenty of time, and we have had cases of people cancelling jobs, parents trying to get a holiday for a sick child waiting since January, and huge and long delays by the Passport Office and the contractor, TNT. The message today on the one-week fast-track service is “System busy, please try again later”, and the  online premium service has no appointments anywhere in the country. So people cannot get urgent travel such as to go to funerals or to urgent events.
The Minister has said more passports are being processed, which is clearly welcome, but it is not enough. The increase in demand this year was totally predictable. In 2020 and 2021, the Home Office was asked what it was doing to plan, but people are already losing holidays, trips to see loved ones and thousands of pounds that they have spent in good faith because of the lack of planning at the Passport Office and at the Home Office, which is in danger of becoming a “Stay-at-Home Office” instead for people this summer. So what grip does the Minister have on this? Is it going to get better or worse over the next two months? How many passports have already been delayed by longer than the 10-week wait, and how many does the Minister think will be delayed by more than 10 weeks over the next month or two?
On staffing, what is the percentage increase compared with before the pandemic? Is it true that the Minister tried to recruit 1,700 staff and got only 500? When will the fast-track services be reopened? What is his advice to a family who are planning to go on holiday in 10 weeks’ time, in July? Do they have any chance of getting their passport, or should they be trying to cancel right now? The problem is that there is a pattern here: delays in the Passport Office, in Ukraine visas, and in basic asylum cases. The Prime Minister said that the answer may be to privatise the Passport Office, but why do Home Office Ministers not just get a grip instead?

Kevin Foster: It is quite interesting to hear all the claims of how predictable all this was. I am struggling to remember the number of times anyone on the shadow Front Bench predicted any of this over the last year or two. I welcome their recently found interest in the Passport Office.
To give some numbers, as of 1 April, there are over 4,000 staff in passport-production roles and, as I say, we are in the process of recruiting another 700. I would also make the point again that 90% of applications were completed within six weeks, and the service standard is 10 weeks. My advice to anyone who is looking to go on holiday this summer is exactly what I said the other day: get an application in now.
We are making a range of efforts. Staff are working weekends; overtime is being incentivised. We are certainly confident that we will not need to change the 10-week target, but as I have said, this is a record level of demand and a record output, far in excess of what we have seen before. We will expedite the applications of those who have compelling and compassionate reasons to travel, such as funerals or family ill health.
We know there are challenges. The teams are working hard to deal with them. [Interruption.] I hear comments about staying at home, but I have not heard a great deal of support from the Labour party for the work of the Minister for Government Efficiency in getting people back into the office, but I am sure that he will welcome the comments we have just heard.
As we see on so many occasions, we are hearing lots of complaints from the Opposition but we are not hearing any solutions or plans. Having just heard from Captain Hindsight, it is no surprise that we are now hearing from Lieutenant Rearview.

David Jones: My constituent, Mr Neil Jones, made an application for a passport at the end of February for his holiday, for which he is due to depart at the end of May. He sent his passport by ordinary pre-paid post—not by recorded delivery, unfortunately—and he was told by the Passport Office that it had never arrived. He then made a further application with a lost passport form, which has not been dealt with. He finds it almost impossible to speak to any representatives of the Passport Office, and he is under considerable stress as a consequence.
My hon. Friend says that the Passport Office is doing its best and that he recognises the difficulties, but I heard this morning that the Prime Minister has threatened the Passport Office with privatisation. May I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should not shy away from that? If the work can be done more efficiently by the private sector, for goodness’ sake, enlist the private sector.

Kevin Foster: Just to be clear, a range of private contractors are already involved in the passport process. The bit that is not undertaken by a private contractor is the decision itself. The customer advice line is run by Teleperformance, a private company. As I have already described, its performance is unacceptable and we are engaged with it.
There is already quite extensive use of the private sector in the process. To be fair, Thales and others have stepped up in the record output that we now require, which is far beyond what would have been expected in a month two or three years ago. The private sector is already being used in the vast majority of the processes in the Passport Office.

Anne McLaughlin: Like many other Members, I have constituents and family members who have lost a lot of money and had to cancel plans because of the passport delays. I share the concerns for those people, but I want to talk about the workers who, yet again, are about to be blamed.
It is a thankless task to work for a Government agency at the best of times but—worse—they are now being blamed for the Government’s failings. Could it be that they are under-resourced, understaffed and suffering from stress from the pressure to do more faster? In Glasgow, many passport staff were forced into further stress when they were redeployed to process universal credit claims with just five days’ training when it would normally be six weeks’ training. Could that be part of the reason for the backlog? It is certainly another source of stress for them.
Those same workers face the public’s understandable anger, but it is being directed at the wrong place. The Government are throwing them to the wolves: Ministers are leaving notes on desks suggesting workers should work a little harder—and that from a Minister who is known to lie down on the Benches in this place when he is supposed to be at work—and, although I do not have the exact quote, the Prime Minister said something like, “If they don’t sort out this backlog, I will privatise the Boris out of them.” How did that go with rail, energy and water? Is that the plan? Was it the plan all along? Is that why the Government did not foresee this? The Opposition cannot be expected to foresee these things—[Interruption.] I hear coughing; I had better ask my last question. Is there any chance that we can  simply respect workers by increasing capacity, decreasing threats against them and sorting out this sorry mess for everybody?

Kevin Foster: I start on a point of consensus by thanking the many staff who are working hard and saw a record output last month. It was 13% higher than the previous record, so we are talking about it beating that record not by one but by some distance. As I said, there are 500 extra staff and we are in the process of recruiting more; between January and March, 90% of applications were dealt with within six weeks; and support is there.
The redeployment that the hon. Lady mentioned took place at a time when passport demand was significantly down. It made sense to redeploy people away from a role where there was not the demand and on to things such as universal credit and the EU settlement scheme. To be clear, those staff have now fully returned to passport production, and on 1 April more than 4,000 staff were working on it. Yes, there are issues, particularly in relation to the unacceptable performance of the advice line, which is run by a private contractor, as I have already touched on.
We continue to put in place a range of measures. If people are to travel somewhere, we advise them to get their applications in now. We saw a strong level of applications yesterday. We continue to do the work we need to do and to expedite those cases in which people have compelling and compassionate reasons for travelling.

Dr Caroline Johnson: Like Members throughout the House, I have a number of constituents who have been waiting for passports for a considerable time, who have had to pay even more for premium services to guarantee their trip, or who are frightened that they are going to miss holidays. I welcome the work that the Minister is doing to speed up the process, and particularly some of the things he said in his statement about people who have been waiting for more than 10 weeks and those who have a particularly urgent need to travel being able to expedite their cases, but will he tell the House how people in such circumstances can access the expedited service?

Kevin Foster: That will be partly through contact with the Passport Office, which is why we are moving to deal with the unacceptable issues in relation to the advice line. Some people come through their Members of Parliament—people get in touch about compelling and compassionate reasons for travel for a range of reasons. I reassure people that, as I touched on, 90% of applications were done in six weeks. The vast majority of people still get their passport done well within the 10-week timeline, but there is provision to expedite applications.
As I say, the numbers of people whose applications reach 10 weeks and so need expedition have been fairly low so far. Colleagues will understand that most of the cases that go beyond 10 weeks are ones in which, for example, there is suspicion that a document that has been submitted is not genuine, or particular evidence has not been included, but that would be true at any other time of the year.
I keep going back to the fact that record output is now being achieved. Our strong message to people, if they are planning to travel, is to get their application  in now.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Diana R. Johnson: We know that the Home Office is under enormous pressure given the Ukraine visas, the Afghanistan scheme and the asylum claims backlog. It was pleasing to hear the Minister say that plans were put in place well in advance because everyone expected a surge in passport applications once people were able to travel. I have heard what the Minister has had to say. On reflection, why does he think he has been brought to the House today to answer an urgent question? MPs’ inboxes are full of casework in respect of passport delays. What has gone wrong with the plans that the Minister put in place to deal with the surge?

Kevin Foster: As we have touched on, we are seeing an unprecedented level of demand: we would normally process 7 million applications in an entire year and did 1 million last month alone. That is a record number. In January, we were seeing around 60,000 a week; by the middle of March we were dealing with more than 200,000 a week—that is output, not just applications. The service has rapidly expanded to meet the demand that has returned.
To be clear, we changed the service standard last year because we expected a surge and there would inevitably be a limit on how many passports could physically be produced in a week. That is why we advised people of the 10-week standard. As I said, though, in recent months 90% of people have still been getting their passport within six weeks and we retain the ability to expedite if people have particularly compelling reasons for travel.

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the sharp increase in passport applications, but when he reviews passport application processes, will he make walk-in centres more widely available? Will he also properly resource the MP hotline so that we can intervene in individual cases if we feel it is necessary?

Kevin Foster: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. We have increased the capacity of the counter service, which is similarly seeing much-increased demand. We certainly accept the point that there need to be significant improvements in the performance of the advice line and the MPs’ line, and we are already engaging with Home Office teams about how we can get more resources in so that people can have their queries answered, particularly when Members of Parliament raise issues on behalf of those with compelling and compassionate reasons for travel and therefore need their application to be expedited.

Peter Dowd: I have a passport office in my constituency; may I say gently to the Minister that his rather transactional and at times nonchalant approach will not go down well with constituents throughout the country? I have had queries from all over the country because of this situation, and delays have been reported for months on end. Will the Minister confirm whether the backlog is reducing or increasing and how significant that might be? Will he consider compensating those who may have lost holidays  outside the times allowed, or the people who have even lost jobs as a result of the problems at the Passport Office?

Kevin Foster: I am disappointed to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments and the tone of them. We have not been nonchalant. Although others have not shown too much interest until now, the teams—including those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—have been working hard. In some cases, they have been working extra hours over weekends—for which I pay tribute to them—to produce a record output that is far above any other Passport Office output on record.
What the hon. Gentleman says sounds rather odd when we are recruiting extra staff and making sure that cases can still be expedited if there are urgent demands. We were clear last year that we put the service standard at 10 weeks to make sure people knew that they may need to allow extra time. Last year, we sent 4.7 million texts to those who had not renewed their passport to try to encourage more people to get their passport applications in. Far from our being nonchalant or uninterested, a lot of work has been done. It is a shame that the passport teams working hard in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are perhaps not getting some of the credit they deserve.

Craig Mackinlay: I appreciate that the surge is such because people have not been able to go away, which was not unanticipated, but I have not heard of too many problems with the online system. People can do online applications and they have been fairly quick.
I have a number of cases, one of which is from just this morning. I will not mention their name in case they get a miracle and are able to go on holiday to Mykonos on Saturday 7 May—I would not want to advertise that they might be away. They have new twins so have to use the paper-based system. Has the Minister been to the passport office at Peterborough or anywhere else to see the volume of physical mail that is sitting at these offices? Is it that working from home has really not helped the system over this recent period?

Kevin Foster: Clearly, there were times over the past couple of years when people were working from home. I have to say that for things such as document scanning, the teams are in the office. A small cohort are employed to work fully digitally, but I have to say that they work on digital applications—for obvious reasons—that can be fully worked on at home. The digital system has provided a great help in dealing with the level of demand, given that it simplifies the process all the way through, including for the applicant. I accept that there are cases in which the digital system cannot be used for particular reasons.
On where we are with the process, things are getting through but, as I say, we advised people to allow 10 weeks, partly because we wanted to be up front with people about potential challenges, but also to ensure that we could get through applications and people did not miss the holidays they had booked. As I say, again, if there are compelling or compassionate reasons, we will look to expedite.

Gavin Newlands: Last week my constituents Paul and Jacqueline Weir received the distressing news that their Finnish daughter-in-law had passed away suddenly and unexpectedly  in their son Daryl’s arms. She was only 34. Daryl and their young son are understandably distraught, and Paul and Jacqueline are desperate to go over to support the family. They applied for an urgent passport renewal and were told that proof of death is required, but those documents may not be available for weeks as the death was unexplained. Can the Minister’s team intervene to ensure that they can go as soon as possible?

Kevin Foster: I am very sorry to hear of the death in that family. Absolutely, given the circumstances of travel, I am happy to liaise with the hon. Member and see if we can get the application expedited.

Paul Bristow: There is undoubtedly a sense of frustration at the length of time it is taking to process passport applications, but we must not forget that those working in the passport offices, in Peterborough and elsewhere, are working extremely hard. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to thank everyone in the Peterborough passport office for all their hard work and reassure them that their efforts are appreciated?

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. The efforts of the team at the Peterborough passport office are certainly much appreciated. As I have touched on several times, we saw record output last month, with over 1 million passports dealt with in just one month, whereas normally we deal with 7 million across a whole year. Many in those teams are working over the weekends to get through the applications. I am very happy to pass on my hon. Friend’s thanks, and I am sure that the staff in the Peterborough passport office very much appreciate his support.

Ben Bradshaw: The Minister asked for solutions, so I will give him one. One reason for the surge in applications is that UK airlines have been misapplying the new post-Brexit passport validity rules, and requiring people to have six months’ validity on their passports when they need only three. Today easyJet has finally put that right and will no longer require six months. Will the Minister get together with the Transport Secretary and tell the other airlines to start implementing the new rules properly?

Kevin Foster: I will happily relay that to the Department for Transport, because obviously we are keen that airlines should apply the rules correctly. Those are not our rules on entry; they are for entering the European Union. I do not expect that would massively mitigate the number of applications we are receiving, given that during the pandemic 5 million passports were not renewed, and we expect a lot of people will now want to renew, looking ahead to summer holiday travel, but I certainly welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s point.

Huw Merriman: In the year before covid, the aviation industry contributed £22 billion to the UK economy and £3.6 billion to the Exchequer through air passenger duty, and it is expected to be at 70% demand this summer, so we cannot put this at risk, for the sake of our economy. May I press the Minister on what extra resources will be allocated? I also re-emphasise the point about the MPs hotline. Our staff are working for hours each day on Ukrainian   refugee cases, and now this is being added to their workload. My caseworker, having been on the phone for hours, then finds she has been cut off. That will not work for us while we deliver on our other responsibilities to our constituents, so can we please get the focus that he talks about?

Kevin Foster: As I have already said, the performance of the advice line is unacceptable and needs to change. I know that the relevant director general at the Home Office is meeting with the chief executive of the company tomorrow. It is not just about the MPs hotline; it is also about sorting out the public advice line. We certainly recognise that it needs to be sorted out, so that people can get answers about their applications, alongside the work to ensure that we are driving up output, which ultimately is the solution to these issues.

Abena Oppong-Asare: I am really concerned that the Minister does not understand the scale of the issue. Many of my constituents have been saving for their holidays for years but now risk losing them altogether due to unacceptable delays of well beyond 10 weeks. They are stuck in limbo, unable to get any updates on what is happening with their applications. I am told that constituents’ emails have gone unanswered, that the phone lines cut out and that the online tracking system does not always work. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, our caseworkers are working relentlessly to try to get updates, but with little success, with lines being cut off, often after queueing for hours to get answers. The Minister really needs to get a grip on this issue, fix the delays and, most importantly, ensure that the people who are waiting are given regular updates on their cases so that they know what is going on.

Kevin Foster: The Government fully recognise the scale of the issue. As I said, there are 5 million unrenewed passports and we expect 2.5 million of them to be renewed, and that is on top of the normal 7 million-strong demand each year. Last month we processed over 1 million applications, which is 30% higher than the previous record, and 90% of those between January and March were done within six weeks. We certainly recognise the scale of this and have put in extra resources. The message we want to get out to the public is that if they are planning to travel this summer, they should make their application now, and we will get through it in the time we have said, which is 10 weeks.

Dan Carden: I want to put on the record my thanks to staff in our passport offices up and down the country, who are facing enormous pressures—I wonder whether the Minister has met the trade unions to discuss the issue. I have a constituent who made his application in February but was told this month that his documentation has been lost. He wants to visit his sick mother in Canada but has received no information and is deeply concerned about the delay. The Minister says that cases can be expedited, which is what my staff are trying to do. What can we expect and what is the timeline for resolving this?

Kevin Foster: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about passport office staff. As he knows, a large number of Home Office staff are based in Liverpool—we have fantastic staff in those decision-making  hubs—so it is good of him to recognise their contribution. I understand that there is regular engagement with staff trade unions. Just to be clear, the weekend working is based on incentivised overtime, not on people being compelled to work. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the individual case he raised, I will happily follow it up.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Minister said in his opening remarks that over 90% of applications were meeting the timescales, but the particular problems, based on my own casework, seem to be with first-time applications and children. As we have seen with the Homes for Ukraine scheme, we are leaving families hanging while they wait for a child’s application to be processed. What assessment has he made of how the Passport Office is linking applications together, because too many families are losing out while waiting for one application to be processed?

Kevin Foster: Passport applications would not usually be linked together as such. It is not like applying for a travel visa, for example, when a family will travel together. This document confirms that someone is a citizen and lasts for 10 years. As I have said, the service standard of 10 weeks applies to paper-based applications and to the digital service, although adult renewals via the digital service will inevitably be quicker, and we would not delay issuing a passport if it was going through the paper process. Certainly, 90% between January and March were issued within six weeks, so not the 10-week standard, and over 1 million were issued last month. For a first passport it may take slightly longer—that is more likely to be a paper-based application—but the 10-week standard still applies.

Tan Dhesi: In response to the Post Office fiasco, the Prime Minister said yesterday during an interview on TalkTV’s “The News Desk” that he does not care whether an institution such as the Post Office is public or private but it must deliver value and good service. That is why the likes of me have been speaking about the dangers of the privatisation of our NHS and the Tories’ ideological fascination with selling off everything in sight. Whenever there is a problem, why is it always someone else’s job on the line, rather than the Prime Minister’s and those of his Ministers?

Kevin Foster: Perhaps I will put my answer to that one in the post.

Catherine McKinnell: People have dying loved ones who cannot be visited; long-awaited family holidays are being postponed or cancelled, and extra costs are being paid to get passports expedited despite the unprecedented cost of living crisis that households are facing. The Minister has acknowledged that there is a problem, so will he take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents for their distress as they wait due to this Government’s failure to properly plan and prepare for this eventuality?

Kevin Foster: As I said, where people have a compassionate and compelling reason to travel, such as having been advised that a loved one is entering their  final days, then that will be expedited via HMPO. Again, if Members have examples, I am very happy to assist with that.
In terms of overall position, we advertised the 10-week service standard last year. We sent out 4.7 million texts to people who had not renewed their passports to point out that there might be a surge if they wished to travel in the following year. As I say, we are still managing to deal with most passport applications relatively quickly, with over 90% issued with six weeks. We planned, prepared for and delivered a record output last month. No other month has seen over 1 million passports issued.

Patricia Gibson: There has been a spike in demand for passports, but that should have been anticipated since we know that 5 million people put off renewing their passport during lockdown. Clearly, more resources are needed, more staffing is needed, and, yes, the MP hotline needs to have better services. Dozens and dozens of my constituents have contacted me in utter despair after enduring very long delays, with some having to cancel travel plans and others left in limbo. The Minister’s response that it is being dealt with sounds hollow to those affected by these delays. What more will he do, now, to help my constituents and all those affected by these delays?

Kevin Foster: As I said, we have an additional 500 staff and we are in the process of recruiting another 700. We let people know that the service standard was being pushed out to 10 weeks last April, so we did not hide from the fact that there would be a surge. We are planning to issue an additional 2.5 million passports this year compared with what we normally do as business as usual. A large amount of work has been done and more is being done. Between January and March, we still saw 90% of applications being determined within six weeks.

Grahame Morris: I thank the staff at the Durham passport office and all the other passport offices for the excellent work they do. I mean no criticism of them; my criticism is of process, of senior managers, and, I am afraid, of the Minister. It is a bit rich the Minister asking those on the Opposition Benches for solutions. I wonder why we are paying him if he cannot come up with them himself. Further to my question at Home Office questions on Monday this week, can he confirm that he has made a decision, and is going to write to me, about the issue of the MP hotline? Again, can we have a direct line to a decision maker in a passport office who has access to all the relevant information and who can actually make decisions, rather than MPs and their staff having to sit for hours waiting on phone lines only to be passed from person to person, speaking to people who are unable to make decisions, answer questions or authorise the printing of passports?

Kevin Foster: While I do not agree with all the hon. Gentleman’s comments, he makes a fair point about the MP hotline, which certainly does need to be better. I am not going to hide from the fact that the performance of the phone lines has been unacceptable, and we need to improve and change that. I thank him for his recognition of the work that the team at the Durham passport office are doing, which has helped to contribute to the record output we saw last month.

Chris Stephens: The failings of private contractors suggest that privatisation is not a solution to passport office backlogs, so will the Minister do two things? First, can he confirm that private contractors have penalty clauses in their contracts, and if so, have they been actioned? Secondly, will he update the advice on the Government website, which says that someone will normally get their passport within five weeks? Not one Member of the House can confidently tell their constituents that, so will he update the Government website to reflect today’s reality?

Kevin Foster: I have already spoken about the involvement of private companies, the exception being the decision that is made, for pretty obvious reasons, by directly employed Home Office staff. In terms of the performance of contractors, there are clauses in particular contracts—certainly, as I say, those for Teleperformance. We do not believe that its performance at the moment is at all acceptable, and that has been made very clear.
We are looking at the information that we give, because there is a balance between telling people the time it roughly takes—for example, saying that 90% of applications were dealt with within six weeks between January and March—and being clear that the standard time to allow is 10 weeks. If there is a particular point on the website that does not make that clear, I will be happy to review it.

Matt Western: I echo the comments made around the Chamber about the work being done in the passport offices. It is really unfair to hear the criticism coming from the Prime Minister, who seems to be speaking at odds to what the Minister is saying. I, like many others, have had a great number of cases of people in my constituency who are struggling to get passports. A particular example is that of young parents with a two-year-old who has an autoimmune condition. They are desperate to get away following his treatment. Will the Minister grant me some time to discuss this, because their holiday is on  10 May and they really need to get away for the good of their child?

Kevin Foster: I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman after the UQ.

Gavin Robinson: I pay tribute to Joseph and Christine from the Belfast passport office, who we have great contact with. All Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland have built up a rapport with those two excellent team leaders who are assisting, knowing how difficult it has been over the past three  or four weeks. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised the issue of six months being required by easyJet and other carriers. The Minister will be aware that access to the Schengen area requires a passport that has two aspects: first, three months’ validity; and secondly, being less than 10 years old. But, as he will know, people in the UK may have passports that are 10 years and nine months or 10 years and six months old. They are valid and have three months remaining but they are not less than 10 years old. The gov.uk website has indicated that engagement is going on between the Foreign Office and the European Commission, and has been for the past four or five months, yet we still do not have a resolution. People in  this country with a valid passport are now putting more pressure on the passport system because they are unnecessarily applying for new passports. I hope the Minister can engage with this with the Foreign Office and find a resolution so that people with valid passports can travel.

Kevin Foster: The hon. Gentleman speaks powerfully and well on this point. I am happy to engage with our colleagues in Government. As long as the passport is valid, it can be used to come back into the UK. This is not a matter of our own rules; as he says, it is about the Schengen rules. However, I am happy to engage with my FCDO colleagues.

Owen Thompson: My constituent Bernadette submitted her application for a passport on 24 January. She chased it up multiple times and spoke to more than 10 different agents who tended to give different information. Some could not find her application; some said that it was closed. She was eventually transferred to the complaints department, who, after leaving her on hold for two hours, told her that her application had indeed been closed and to try again. She reapplied months ago and has heard nothing since. My office has engaged with this. We wrote to the Home Office on 6 April, some 21 days ago, and still have not even had an acknowledgement. What might the Minister say to Bernadette, and to Hannah, Shereen, Lee, Lisa, Stuart and Elizabeth, all of whom have engaged with us and recounted the various issues that they have had with the passport office in recent months?

Kevin Foster: It does sound as though something has gone rather wrong there, given that, as I said, back in mid-January the demand was not as high as it became in mid-March. We saw a very strong surge at the end of February and into March, and the output surged as well. As I said, 90% of applications submitted in that time were dealt with in six weeks. Clearly something has gone wrong and I am happy to look at the circumstances after the UQ.

Taiwo Owatemi: I, too, thank the passport office staff. I am sure the Minister will be all too aware that the passport processing crisis is not new. One of my constituents has been waiting months for a new passport. They have called the passport office over 80 times since early March but have not received a useful response. With a holiday booked in May, they risk losing thousands and thousands of pounds if they are unable to travel. Can the Minister explain to my constituent why the communication has been so poor and when they should expect to hear back? My constituents need clarity and a resolution of the delays as soon as possible.

Kevin Foster: Again, I am happy to pick up separately the particular case. As I have touched on, the 10-week standard is there, and we have not had to expedite many cases beyond 10 weeks. I would not want to speculate on whether there are issues with the application, but I am certainly happy to look into the specific case and get an answer.

Cat Smith: There are dozens of cases I could raise with the Minister this afternoon, but I will raise the case of Helen, about  which my office has been on hold for just over two hours. She spent £7,000 on a holiday and is due to fly out on Sunday. She applied for her passport in January. My staff may get cut off again on the MPs’ hotline, so is there anything that the Minister can do to make sure that my constituent Helen will go on holiday? If she does not, what can she do for compensation, because that was a very expensive holiday?

Kevin Foster: I am certainly happy to pick up the point. Certainly if it has been going on since January, I suspect we are now beyond the 10 weeks, and something should be done. Obviously I do not want to get into speculation about issues with the application—that would not be appropriate on the Floor of the House—but if the hon. Member supplies me with the details, I will be happy to look into the case.

Munira Wilson: Over the past year, I and my team have been supporting Mr and Mrs Puri from Whitton in my constituency. Mrs Puri’s brother and sister-in-law in India both died of covid, leaving behind very young children without parents. Mrs Puri has been in India, separated from her children here, for a year trying to adopt her niece and nephew and bring them over. Thankfully, a little over two months ago they were granted British citizenship. She applied for passports for those children immediately. Despite my interventions, they are still waiting for their passports. Will the Minister please urgently look at this tragic and exceptional case and meet me, so that the whole Puri family can be reunited after a year and those young Indian children can start their new life here in the UK?

Kevin Foster: Obviously we are sorry to hear of the circumstances. There are issues sometimes with issuing passports overseas, particularly where, for example, there have been local restrictions, but given the circumstances, I would be very happy to pick up the case and see what we can do, or if we can arrange some sort of documentation to allow them to travel pending the passports.

Janet Daby: We are hearing so many moving cases where there have been deep failures within the Home Office that are not being addressed and need to be addressed. I have no doubt that Passport Office staff are working incredibly hard, but they can only work effectively if they have the resources to do so. I find it astonishing that the Government are unable to manage a Government agency. I have a constituent who is a dual national and who has applied for her passport to be renewed, which took several months. That has been resolved, but she was told that she would receive her passport within two weeks, and it has been more than four weeks. She cannot get through to the Passport Office by any means, and my staff were cut off from the MPs’ hotline after 45 minutes, but they are persistent. Will the Minister agree to look at that case as well?

Kevin Foster: I am very happy to. As I have touched on, we accept that the performance of the telephone lines is not acceptable, and we are making moves to change that, but I am happy to pick up that particular case.

Patrick Grady: Like all Members who have spoken, I have had several constituents experience delays. One pinch point seems to be the private contractor responsible for delivering passports. Even once a passport has been processed, they seem to go on little holidays of their own all around the UK until they eventually arrive—or not—on the constituent’s doorstep. Can the Minister speak to that private contractor and perhaps look at options for people to collect their passports from a depot, rather than having to stay in all day in the hope that the passport might arrive?

Kevin Foster: There has been some significant engagement on performance and improvement with FedEx, the parent company of TNT, which does most of our delivery. Given the surge in demand, we have brought online DHL, which we use for our international deliveries, to increase the delivery capacity. Supporting documents are now also being returned via Royal Mail, because with the surge in demand, we have also had to surge our ability to deliver. Certainly there are issues there, although from our big bulk production sites it would actually take more time to fish passports out of a large pile than it would to allow them to be delivered to people directly, and there are obviously some security issues with ensuring that we give a passport to the person entitled to it.

Emma Hardy: My constituent made a passport application for himself and his daughter in June 2021. He provided his original marriage deed and his daughter’s birth certificate. These are Syrian documents, and because of the situation in Syria they are irreplaceable. These documents have gone missing and despite formal complaints, representations from his own lawyer, a phone call from my office and an email from my office, we are yet to receive a reply on what has happened. Will the Minister urgently look into this case?

Kevin Foster: Very happy to. It sounds rather different from the issues of surge and the other areas we are talking about, if it has been going on since June 2021, but I am very happy to pick up the particular details of this case.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to go with someone whose birthday it is, haven’t I? I call Ruth Jones.

Ruth Jones: The staff working at the Passport Office in my constituency of Newport West have been working incredibly hard under difficult circumstances, but they require additional staff to deal with the record demand to which the Minister has already alluded. The staff union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, has claimed that the Passport Office planned to recruit 1,700 new staff members to help deal with this increased demand, but only 300 have actually been brought in so far. Can the Minister confirm those reports?

Kevin Foster: I can confirm that we have increased staff numbers by 500 since April 2021, and we are in the process of recruiting another 700. As of 1 April, there were more than 4,000 staff in passport production roles. We are also offering incentivised overtime as well, for  those who are prepared to work at weekends. We are increasing the resources and the staffing, and again I pay tribute to the staff working at the Newport passport office, who are doing a tremendous job under a lot of pressure.

Alison Thewliss: I have a Passport Office in my constituency, and while I am sure they are all working hard, I am distressed to hear from my constituents about how they believe they have been let down and lied to by staff who they have been dealing with. Can I ask the Minister a very specific question? My constituent Sean was the victim of an unprovoked assault with a knife last year, and he has just discovered that his passport has a puncture hole and blood stains on it. Can the Minister give some advice on whether Sean needs to apply for a new passport before his holiday in a fortnight’s time, or will the one that he has suffice?

Kevin Foster: It might be worth discussing the specifics afterwards, depending on how badly damaged the passport is, but I suspect we need to look at dealing with that compassionately, as it is compelling, particularly where he wants to go on holiday with a passport that will immediately remind him of what happened. If we get the details afterwards, I know the team would be happy to help, particularly assuming that it is a straightforward adult renewal, which it sounds like it would be.

Marion Fellows: Did the Minister receive my letter this week that was signed by almost 100 parliamentarians on this very issue? I wrote to him because of the troubles we were having in my office, all of which have been more than adequately described by many people here today. Is he going to do anything to help people who have lost their holidays and not had all their money reimbursed? They put everything in with plenty of time. They have spent hours on the phone, as have my staff. In one example, a whole family going to Euro Disney did not get to go because the five-year-old’s passport did not arrive, all the other family members having got theirs. This cannot go on. He has made some effort to say what he will be doing, but does he really think that is enough?

Kevin Foster: Well, what we are going to do is on top of what we have already done in increasing staffing numbers and increasing production to record levels of more than a million in one month. We were also very clear to the public last year about the 10-week allowance for doing it and the ability to get applications expedited if they have been outstanding for more than 10 weeks. I would not want to speculate about individual applications —sometimes things will go beyond 10 weeks for particular reasons relating to the application—but we have done a lot already. We have got to a record level of output, and there is more on the way, with more staff being recruited. Separately, we are looking to sort out the staffing issues in relation to the advice line.

Justin Madders: Last night, in response to a written question I submitted on average processing time for passport applications, I was told that the Department did not have the information available, which, given what we have heard today, does not fill me with confidence that the Department has a grip on what is necessary to deal with these issues.
Turning to constituency problems, which many hon. Members have already raised, I obviously also have many constituents who have had serious delays with the Passport Office. There are two families who applied in early February who have still not had their passports. They are due to go away in the next few days. They cannot speak to anyone on the telephone and neither can my constituency staff. They applied in time and have played by the rules. If I send the Minister the information, will he personally intervene to ensure that they get those passports in time?

Kevin Foster: To the latter part, yes. I am happy to have the details. As I have said, in terms of processing times, between January and March, more than 90% of cases were completed within six weeks. Although we advise people to allow 10 weeks, the vast majority of people are getting their passports much more quickly.

Christine Jardine: I appreciate what the Minister says about understanding the problems, but I feel that saying to people, “Get your applications in on time,” does not really cover it. One of our main problems is that when our staff call, they are asked whether it is passports, Ukraine or other. Most of the cases that need to be expedited come under “other”, but when they go on to that line, the people there say, “Email us.” We are already doing that and emails are lying there unanswered for two months. At the moment, in every area, the Home Office seems to be high on rhetoric and low on delivery. Can the Minister take back to the Secretary of the State that this is simply not working anymore and that drastic action is needed to knock the system into shape?

Kevin Foster: Advising people to apply strikes me as good advice if people are planning a holiday. I am pleased to note that since that advice was given we have seen more applications coming in this week. In terms of being low on delivery, we delivered more than 1 million passport decisions last month—a record number. There is a significant amount of work being done by dedicated teams. We are bringing in more staff to be able to do more. We have even expanded our delivery network to cope with the output that we now have, as touched on in an answer to a previous question. We recognise those pressures and those issues, but that is why we have advised for some time to allow 10 weeks. If people are looking to go on holiday this summer, our advice is firmly, “Get your application in now.”

Gerald Jones: Delays with processing passports are causing huge delays to my constituents and those across the country, as we have heard. The lack of planning by the Government, not to mention not providing enough staff to manage what everyone could see would be a huge demand, smacks of incompetence. We have an MPs hotline that cannot provide information to help constituents and that is currently not fit for purpose. In addition, I have constituents who paid a fast-track fee only for my staff to be told—after waiting for three hours yesterday—that paying the fee does not guarantee fast track. The Government have caused this mess and the undue pressure on staff in the passport offices, so when will they get a grip and sort the problem out?

Kevin Foster: Again, let us go back to what we have already said: 4.7 million texts were sent out last year; 1 million passports were issued last month—a record amount; more staff are being recruited; and existing staff, if they wish, are being given the opportunity to work incentivised overtime. There has been a large amount of planning and work done to meet the challenge, but inevitably, with 2.5 million extra passport applications due this year, on top of the 7 million that we expect to receive from those whose passports fall due this year, there were going to be pressures in the system. That is why we were up front in April last year in changing the service standard and doing some campaign work to remind people of that. We are now doing everything we can, including bringing in extra staff, to ensure that we can meet the surge of demand that is there. As I said, between January and March, 90% of people got their passport within six weeks.

Carla Lockhart: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. He has certainly been across his brief, so I thank him very much for that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, I pay tribute to staff in the Belfast office for all their hard work, particularly Christine and Joseph, who are exceptional when they are contacted. Honeymoons, family reunions and holidays postponed because of covid are all being affected. I am dealing with passport applications from January. A particular problem appears to be children, as was eloquently outlined earlier. Will the Minister outline when more fast-track appointments will become available? There are currently none available across the United Kingdom.

Kevin Foster: I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments about the staff in the Belfast passport office, following on from the similar comments of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson). I know that they will be very much appreciated by the staff concerned. We release additional fast-track appointments every day. With the level of demand that we are seeing, they are taken up relatively quickly whereas normally there might be availability over a number of days. We have looked to expand the number of counter appointments, but she will appreciate that there is a limit to how many we can realistically offer each day. In some cases, some of the slots to do that sort of expedition would instead be used to deal with compelling and compassionate applications where someone urgently needs a passport to travel for some of the reasons that I have touched on.

Jonathan Edwards: I raise the case of my constituent Elliot Joshua Rees of Pontyates near Llanelli, who made his initial application on 8 February, more than 10 weeks ago. The application seemingly hit a series of barriers resulting from his parents’ marriage certificate, which is Austrian, despite the family providing a certified translation. The family are due to go on holiday in the next few weeks. Will the Minister please look at that specific case?

Kevin Foster: Certainly, if the application is over 10 weeks and the family are due to travel, I know that the Passport Office will be happy to expedite that and resolve it. It sounds like there has been a specific issue with it. I am happy if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise that with me directly.

Margaret Ferrier: There is no doubt that staff across the UK have been working hard, but a constituent submitted an application more than 10 weeks before travel. Her Majesty’s Passport Office made a series of mistakes and seriously mishandled it; it even lost my constituent’s documents. When my office tried to help, it told my staff on one occasion that the application had not been made until a week after our first contact with it about the application. I also wrote to its director general, who never responded. What is the Home Office doing to implement meaningful routes of escalation and to address where there have been failings in specific cases?

Kevin Foster: I am sorry to hear of the hon. Lady’s experience. As already touched on a number of times in this UQ, I accept that the current performance of the advice lines for members of the public and Members of Parliament is not what it should be. That does need to change. On the specific case, I am happy for her to raise the details with me after the session.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his industrious efforts to try to solve the problem; it is clear that he is trying to do that. I echo the comments about the staff in the Belfast office, who are assiduous in their response on behalf of our constituents. This morning, three more constituent families—on top of the dozens of others—have contacted my office to say that they cannot get their passports, which are in date but with six months’ life left on them. It is about solutions, so what discussions have there been with Brussels to secure a mutually beneficial extension to enable my constituents to have their holidays and them to get British moneys into the local tourist economy?

Kevin Foster: Certainly, colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office regularly engage with our European friends about the rules and about entry, particularly into the Schengen area where the common rules apply based on the European Union’s rules. Obviously, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a more flexible approach the other way around in terms of our visitor rules and entry to the UK. We regularly remind our colleagues that it would be nice if they replicated that and looked at the benefits that our more generous visitor routes bring to the UK, particularly Northern Ireland’s tourist economy.
We always save the best until last in UQs with the hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his kind remarks about the staff at the Belfast passport office, who I know will very much appreciate them.

Channel 4 Privatisation

Lucy Powell: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the privatisation of Channel 4.

Julia Lopez: Our TV and radio industry is one of our great success stories, and public service broadcasters such as Channel 4 are central to that success. Our PSBs sit at the heart of our broadcasting system, delivering distinctive, high-quality content and helping to develop skills, talent and growth across the entire country.
However, the broadcasting world has changed beyond recognition in recent years. Rapid changes in technology and the rise of American streaming giants such as Netflix, Amazon Prime and Disney+, not to mention YouTube and social media platforms, have transformed audience habits. Viewers can watch what they want, when they want, on their laptop, phone, smart TV or Fire stick. As a result, while streaming services have enjoyed a 19% increase in subscribers in recent years, the share of total viewers for linear TV channels such as the BBC and ITV has fallen by more than 20%.
The Government are determined to protect the role of PSBs in our nation’s economic, cultural and democratic life, and to make sure that they remain at the heart of our broadcasting system no matter what the future holds. Tomorrow, therefore, we will be publishing a White Paper that proposes major reforms to our decades-old broadcasting regulations—reforms that will put traditional broadcasters such as the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 on an even playing field with Netflix, Amazon Prime and others, and enable them to thrive in the streaming age. We will set out the full details of our proposals when the White Paper is published.
It is important to understand that the sale of Channel 4 is just one part of that major piece of reform. Like the rest of the White Paper, it is a reflection of the transformation that broadcasting has undergone in the last few years and the need to make sure that our PSBs can keep pace with those changes.
Channel 4 has done a fantastic job in fulfilling the original mission that it was set by the Thatcher Government: to spur independent production and deliver cutting-edge content. The independent production sector has exploded in the last few decades, growing from a £500 million industry in 1995 to an industry of approximately £3 billion in 2019. However, since it was structured to address the challenges of the 1980s, there are limits to Channel 4’s ability to adapt to the 2020s and beyond.
Channel 4 now faces a new set of challenges. It faces huge competition for audience share and advertising spend from a wider range of players, many of whose deep pockets have been driving up production costs. Streamers such as Netflix spent £779 million on UK productions in 2020, more than twice as much as Channel 4. While other PSBs, such as the BBC and Channel 5, have the freedom to make and sell their own content, Channel 4 has no in-house studio and relies almost entirely on linear television advertising spend at a time when those revenues are rapidly shifting online.
Under its current form of ownership, Channel 4 has few options to grow, invest and compete. The Government believe that it is time to unleash the broadcaster’s full potential and to open Channel 4 up to private ownership and investment—crucially, while protecting its public service broadcasting remit. We believe we can sell Channel 4 to a buyer who will fund emerging talent and independent and impartial news, and invest in every corner of the UK.
We intend to use the proceeds of the sale to tackle today’s broadcasting challenges. As I said, our independent production sector is thriving. Only 7% of its revenue comes from Channel 4. The much bigger challenge we face is a shortage of skills. Our film and TV studios are booming. We need to give people the skills to fill the jobs in them, so we will reinvest the proceeds of a Channel 4 sale into levelling up the creative sector and giving people in left-behind areas the training and opportunity to work in the industry.
The sale of Channel 4 will not just benefit the broadcaster; it will deliver a creative dividend for the entire country. As I said, the future of Channel 4 is just one part of our wider reform of the entire broadcasting sector, and I look forward to providing the House with the full details shortly.

Lucy Powell: The sell-off of Channel 4 is an important matter for Parliament, yet instead of a statement we had announcement by tweet during recess, and now we hear that a White Paper is to be published tomorrow, when we will not be here and there will not be an opportunity for statements. Where is the Secretary of State to defend her policy today? It is a pattern, and it is a disgrace. Nothing screams rudderless Government like fixating on the governance of Channel 4 while people’s energy bills are going through the roof. It did not even make the list of pretty bad ideas discussed at yesterday’s Cabinet.
Why sell off Channel 4, and why now? Is it because there is an overwhelming clamour from the public? The Government still have not published the 60,000 consultation responses, but my understanding is that the vast majority were against any sale. Is it to help level up the country? Given that Channel 4 commissions half its budget outside London, creating a pipeline of talent across the nations and regions, and stimulating the creative economy in places such as Leeds, Glasgow and Bristol, of course it is not. Is it to create more British jobs in our world-leading creative industries? The Minister and I both know that the likely buyers are going to be the big US media companies, looking for a shop window for their own content. That will mean fewer British-made programmes for British audiences and fewer British jobs. Any UK bidder could lead to less competition, and of course they would be looking at economies of scale.
Is it to support the independent production sector? Channel 4 is currently, uniquely, a publisher-broadcaster, allowing start-ups and independents to retain the value of their own programmes, helping them grow and export. No buyer is going to continue with that model. That is why the UK independent production sector is so overwhelmingly against the sell-off. Or is it to save the Treasury money? I know that the Secretary of State was a bit confused about this in front of the Select Committee, but Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer a single penny. Indeed, its profits are all reinvested in British jobs  and programming.
The Secretary of State says the sell-off is needed to help Channel 4 compete with the likes of Netflix and Amazon. The truth is it will be gobbled up by them. She says the sell-off will generate a pot of up to £1 billion for her to dish out in grants, but Channel 4 already invests that amount here, commercially, each and every year. She says she will protect the essence of Channel 4 in a new remit, but I thought that was the straitjacket she wanted to free it from. The truth is that the sell-off just does not stack up, and the Secretary of State is running scared of Parliament. In fact, it is going to clog up Parliament for months to come because she has no mandate to do it and there is widespread opposition to it on her own Benches.
I can only conclude that this is a deliberate distraction from partygate, a vendetta against Channel 4 news coverage, or another act of cultural vandalism. Channel 4 is a great British asset, owned by the public, that does not cost them a penny. It commissions award-winning British programmes owned by the small independent sector. That is why Margaret Thatcher invented it, and that is why the Government are wrong to sell it off.

Rosie Winterton: I really do need to remind both Front Benchers that in an urgent question the Minister has three minutes, the shadow Minister has two minutes, and the SNP spokesperson has one minute. [Interruption.] No—if it is a statement, it is different. I call Minister Lopez.

Julia Lopez: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important to say that tomorrow is a sitting day, and we bid for a ministerial statement on this subject.
We are very keen that the House understands that the Channel 4 sale is not a stand-alone issue; it sits within a very important series of reforms that we as a Government want to make to the public service broadcasting system. Channel 4 is an incredibly important economic asset in that ecosystem, and we want to make sure that it is sustainable not just now but long into the future. We think it is our responsibility as the Government to do that future-gazing and to make sure that Channel 4 has the freedom and flexibility it needs to be able to make changes to thrive.
There are two important things to understand about Channel 4. First, it cannot retain control of its own intellectual property, and therefore it does not have the same financial flexibility as the likes of ITV and the BBC, both of which have their own studios. Secondly, its borrowing sits on the public balance sheet, and therefore if it required greater financial flexibility in the future, the Treasury would need to be content with that.
As I say, tomorrow is a sitting day. We had very much hoped that we would be able to set the sale of Channel 4 in the context of a wider series of incredibly important reforms that we wish to make to the public service broadcasting sector. I regret that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) does not think this is an important issue and has dismissed it as some culture war. That could not be further from the truth. The last time that important broadcasting reforms were made was 2003. I hope she will agree that the broadcasting world has changed immeasurably since then, and that the Government would not be responsible if we did not address some of those changes.
We think the public service broadcasters play an incredibly important democratic, cultural and economic role in our nation’s life and we want to sustain that role, so we think the privatisation of Channel 4 is an important part of a wider series of reforms. We will make further details available to colleagues, and I will be engaging one-to-one with colleagues who have concerns as we go forward.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister may or may not have been convinced by the words that she read out, but I do not think that they convinced the House. Channel 4 is in the best state that it has been in creatively or financially for decades. We were told that it is supposed to be able to compete with Netflix, but Netflix is a loss-making, debt-ridden business whose share price is now $198 when it was $700—an enormous drop.
If the choice for the country is about Channel 4’s specific remit and structure as a publisher-commissioner that does not hold programme rights, the Government could do best by leaving it alone. If they do not, they could engage with Channel 4’s management team about its proposals—I am not sure that we have all seen them in public—and explain why they prefer to go to the United States than to have a state broadcaster that is independent of Government.
Those in government may not like Channel 4 because it may criticise the Government in its news output, but it is better to be in government and criticised than to be in opposition and cheer.

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is important to understand that the Secretary of State and I went into the entire process with a very open mind—[Interruption.] That is certainly true. We went into this looking at what is best for the public service broadcasting sector as a whole going forward. We looked incredibly carefully at alternatives, and I hope that the material that we will publish tomorrow will assure him of that fact. We think that we can get the right blend by retaining Channel 4’s public service broadcast remit, which maintains its distinct and unique appeal, while enabling it to get the private sector capital investment that it requires to deal with some of the wider challenges presented by the likes of Netflix.
I appreciate what my hon. Friend said about changes in subscriptions. I think that underlines the volatility of the market and the need to be able to compete and invest in content. That is incredibly important. If Channel 4 is to remain uniquely appealing, we need that investment in content, and we believe that the reforms will give it greater sustainability going forward.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson, John Nicolson.

John Nicolson: Well, here we go again: a Secretary of State, oblivious to the unanimous opposition of the sector, is ploughing on with a politically motivated privatisation. She knew so little about Channel 4 that she thought it was publicly funded and had to be corrected by a Tory colleague on camera. Channel 4 costs the taxpayer nothing. The cynical motivation for the policy is simple: it is payback time; it is revenge. The Government hate “Channel 4 News” and its rigorous journalism holding Ministers  to account.
The Minister mentioned a Netflix-style model, ignoring the fact that Netflix, unlike Channel 4, loses money—it is currently $15 billion in debt—and does not send war correspondents to Ukraine. Will she therefore listen to the experts, or must we wait for the Sue Gray report, the Prime Minister’s defenestration and the Secretary of State’s replacement?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Member for his question. I did not suggest that Channel 4 would pursue a Netflix subscription model; I simply made the point that Netflix and others—this is not a Netflix issue alone—are changing the dynamics of the marketplace very rapidly. People now view content in very different ways and I do not think it would be a wise, sensible or responsible approach to leave PSBs untouched and unable to have the flexibility that they need to address some of those fundamental challenges.
The hon. Member made a number of unpleasant comments about the Secretary of State. She is not the first Secretary of State to have considered this question. This is not a Secretary of State-specific point of view but a question that has been live for a number of years. It was looked at previously, and the fundamental changes in the market have only deepened since that time with the move away from linear advertising and the rapid change in viewing habits. She took the responsible decision to look not just at Channel 4 but at how we ensure that public service broadcasters have the flexibility they need to be able to provide the content that we all love. She has done a sensible thing in looking at the decision afresh and dealing with it head on, and she has courage in doing so.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Julian Knight.

Julian Knight: I am concerned to hear that the media Bill White Paper will be published tomorrow, a day when we may not have an opportunity to see the full details. I hope that we will not have to rely on the media round in the morning to get those details.
On Channel 4 privatisation. I start from the position that everything should be in the private sector unless there is the strongest of cases that public ownership is absolutely essential. I therefore broadly welcome the concept of privatisation, but what assurances can the Minister give me that the privatisation is a game worth the candle? Will it be part of a redesign of public service content ensuring prominence, collaborative working of a whole new order and a continued driver of BBC reform to gradually and safely wean it off the licence fee?

Julia Lopez: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement on the issue and for the work of his Committee, which the Department very much values. I was able to speak to him about the proposal previously, and I am glad that we have a meeting scheduled for later today, for which my plan had been to take him through some of the wider reforms that we wish to make in the PSB sector and offer him the assurances that he seeks. As he knows from previous conversations, the Secretary of State and I were adamant that the proposal needed to go hand in hand with a creative dividend and a wider set of reforms to make it a success.

Chris Bryant: The UK has the best broadcasting in the world by a country mile. In so many different genres—drama, comedy and natural history—we lead the world, which is remarkable considering that we are a relatively small economy compared with the rest of the world. Channel 4 is intrinsic to making all of that work because it does something that no other broadcaster in the world ever did: it guarantees diversity through the private sector for everybody. I therefore cannot understand why the Minister would want to dismantle it. Will she say just one thing to me? If she does sell it off, will she ensure that it can be owned only by people who pay taxes in this country?

Julia Lopez: I agree with the hon. Member about how fantastic our broadcasting sector is—it has unrivalled creativity—and we are seeking fundamentally to preserve that in the reforms that we are making. In this country, we are able to have a great blend of specific public service remits that private broadcasters can deliver, and that is what we would seek to do with Channel 4 going forward, protecting the things that we enjoy and love about it. We believe that any future buyer of Channel 4 would seek to purchase it precisely to tap into the specific markets that it appeals to.

Chris Bryant: Will they be British?

Julia Lopez: I will not speculate on the nationality of any company. We will be looking at bidders who share our vision for Channel 4, the important role that it plays in investment in our creative industries and the distinct and unique remit that it has in our country. We can provide further details as the process goes on, but I will not stand here and make commitments and crowd out particular buyers for an important UK company.

Helen Grant: Channel 4 is a prized national asset that was created by Margaret Thatcher 40 years ago. It puts public service before profit and continues to be sustainable, so why are the Government failing to consider its detailed plans to address their concerns? The plans were set out very clearly in a document entitled “4: The Next Episode”, which was provided to the Government on 28 January this year.

Julia Lopez: My hon. Friend plays an important role through her work with the all-party parliamentary group for Channel 4, and I am glad for the engagement that we have already had on the issue. I am also glad that she recognised the role of the Thatcher Government in creating this special entity. As I mentioned in my statement, it was set up to spur independent production in this country, and it has done a fantastic job in that, but the world has changed fundamentally.
My hon. Friend raises the alternatives that Channel 4’s management put forward. I assure her that we gave detailed consideration to those plans and tomorrow we will provide further details in a set of documents as to why we decided that they are not the right way forward. We also have duties to the taxpayer, to the wider creative sector and to the audience. Our reforms are really to sustain Channel 4’s place in in our creative ecology.

Alison Thewliss: Channel 4 invests about £20 million a year in Scottish independent production companies, contributing £36 million in gross  value added and supporting about 400 jobs. I am proud that it has a hub in my constituency. Glasgow-based indies do get contracts with Netflix and the others, but they are clear that the Channel 4 model is at the heart of their success. Why would the Minister put all that at risk with privatisation?

Julia Lopez: We do not think we are putting it at risk. There are a number of things we can do via the PSB remit on quotas for independent production and we would seek to maintain those. We will be bringing forward a series of reforms that we hope, ultimately, will grow the sector over the period of time we are talking, such that all independent producers will benefit.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend was right, of course, to say that previous Secretaries of State have considered the privatisation of Channel 4, but she will also recognise that not all of us were persuaded at the time that it was the right thing to do. If the Government are determined to privatise Channel 4, she will also recognise, I am sure, that one of the things that makes Channel 4 distinctive is its willingness to take risks and commission work it cannot be sure will be successful. By doing so, it encourages creatives in the sector to take risks themselves. That is good for the sector and good for our broadcasting. Can she reassure me that if privatisation proceeds, the Department will be particularly focused on making sure that that provision is retained in the broadcasting landscape?

Julia Lopez: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question. In recognition of what he says, the reason that previous Secretaries of State looked at this matter was that they could see a number of trends, particularly on spend on linear advertising, that were only going in the wrong direction for a broadcaster like Channel 4, which is uniquely dependent on that spend. Something like 70% of its revenues come from linear advertising spend. I think he would recognise the speed of change in the sector and the fundamental changes in viewing habits, particularly among younger audiences. We think it is responsible for any Government to be very cognisant of that. He will be aware that a number of things can be done in terms of remit and how we engineer the sale to ensure that what is unique, distinct and valued about Channel 4 can be maintained and protected going forward.

Barry Sheerman: I feel a bit sorry for the Minister, because the Secretary of State is not here. We all know what the game is: this shabby little bunch in No. 10 are determined to undermine public service broadcasting in our country. As she said, this is part of a wider attack on the BBC and all public service broadcasting in the week when the forces of darkness, in the shape of the richest man in the world, have gobbled up Twitter. The fact of the matter is that if we do not stand firm—[Interruption.] The Whip is either having a bad attack or he has indigestion, but this is not funny. For a party and a Government who believe in levelling up, this will do great damage to Leeds and the creative industries in the north of England. The forces of darkness are on the rampage. Channel 4 will be gobbled up in no time by someone like the richest man in the world.

Julia Lopez: I am desperately grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s sympathy and I am sure I will need it going forward. I would just simply say that the reforms we seek to make are about the fundamental sustainability of the public service broadcasting system. If the Opposition wish to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that those fundamental changes are not happening, then that is for them to worry about. We are making a series of fundamental reforms. As I say, the legislation was last looked at in 2003. This Secretary of State is looking fundamentally at this area to make sure that we are serving audiences, the taxpayer and the wider creative sector. I commend her for having the courage to make those changes.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is aware of my profound scepticism about the wisdom of the action the Government are taking on this matter. I keep reading that the Prime Minister wants Departments to do Conservative things. May I therefore urge on the Minister the very Conservative action of listening to the voice of small business—the many small businesses and creative companies—that Members from all sides of the House are praising because they provide innovation, creativity and jobs around the country, precisely serving the levelling-up agenda? Can she tell us, having looked at the consultation responses the Government have not published, what is the overwhelming voice from those small businesses? They are all saying that Channel 4 is not broke and does not need fixing in this way. They are urging the Government not to go down this route.

Julia Lopez: I thank my right hon. Friend for his engagement already on this issue and I appreciate the conversations we have had. We will publish the consultation responses tomorrow. As I said, we have a whole package of information that hon. Members will no doubt scrutinise and hold us to account for, but I hope that they will also welcome it, because this is a series of important reforms. This is fundamentally about growing and sustaining our fantastic creative sector to the benefit not only of audiences but of the small businesses he cites. One thing we are keen to secure is a creative dividend to deal with the challenges that companies are actually talking to me about, which are the skills required for the booming production sector we have in this country.

Naseem Shah: Ampere Analysis says that privatisation would put independent production companies out of business. As the Member of Parliament for Bradford West, Channel 4 in Leeds makes a real difference to diversity, especially in news channels and in journalism as a whole. Can the Minister assure me that if we go down that road and they privatise it, the buyer will be required to maintain the presence and trajectory of workforce growth in Channel 4’s regional offices in Leeds, Glasgow, Bristol and Manchester?

Julia Lopez: The hon. Lady is right to highlight the great investment that Channel 4 has made in Leeds, which was actually at the encouragement of previous Secretaries of State when we previously looked at the question of privatisation. In our relationship with Channel 4, we have encouraged it to seek to increase what it does in the regions and nations of our country, and we think it has done a great job of that. We value the contribution it has made to regions and cities,  and we will very much seek to preserve that in any  sale process.

Stephen Hammond: Channel 4 has been a driver of the independent sector. As the Minister knows, the independent sector trade body is raising considerable concerns about the impact of privatisation on the sector. Will she tell the House whether she intends to retain, in the privatisation details, an obligation and a quota for the independent private sector?

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important point that we can get a number of our aims in relation to independent production via quotas in the public service broadcasting remit. We will be seeking to do that. We will provide further details as the process goes on, but I hope that when we are able to publish the White Paper tomorrow he will see that we will seek to retain and modernise the approach we take to independent production such that the companies he is concerned about will be able to benefit.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The small businesses in the creative sector in Northern Ireland have revolutionised television production in Northern Ireland beyond recognition. No one would have thought that a film about four or five wee girls growing up in the maiden city in Northern Ireland would have been such a dramatic success in every single aspect. That would not have happened without Channel 4. That is the reality. There are 81 jobs in Northern Ireland supported directly by Channel 4. It contributes £8 million annually to Northern Ireland’s GVA. Over a quarter of £1 billion is contributed to Northern Ireland as a result of television and film making. Nine television dramas and six major films were made last year in Northern Ireland. What will the Minister do to ensure that the production fund and the independent fund, which have supported jobs, production and apprenticeships in companies such as Waddell Media, Stellify Media, Strident Media and Fired Up Films, will be protected going forward?

Julia Lopez: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman remind the House of the thriving creative sector in Northern Ireland, and the tremendous programmes and content that have come out of the place that he represents. That is something we all celebrate. We think that any future buyer would look at the unique and distinct content that Channel 4 provides as one of its great assets. We are able to protect some of that via the remit, which we would seek to do, but it is also important that Channel 4 is only one part of why the creative sector has been very successful in Northern Ireland. I commend him and his constituents for the contribution they have made to that success.

Andy Carter: I agree with the Minister that there have been massive changes to the broadcasting sector, in particular in TV advertising and particularly for linear TV. It is right that we do not leave PSBs in aspic, but will she confirm that there will be an ongoing commitment in PSBs for prime time news? It is important that we have a diversity of voices in news. Will there be that commitment to prime time news for Channel 4 under a new ownership model?

Julia Lopez: It is frustrating that I cannot set this entire question within the wider context of the reforms that we seek to make. Public service broadcasting is valued by the Government precisely because it provides  the kind of content in which a lot of commercial operators are not necessarily inclined to invest. The challenge is to want to make channels continue to be PSBs. The reforms that we are introducing will provide people with a number of advantages in being public service broadcasters that we hope will mean that the important democratic content, which we all value, is retained in the future broadcasting system. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and I am happy to continue to engage with him during the process, because he is a champion for the sector and has a number of important views that need to be considered.

Rachel Hopkins: Under private ownership, Channel 4’s output will be dictated by profit rather than public service, and I share the concerns about creative risk taking and the impact on diversity when commissioning content—would we see “Derry Girls”, “The Last Leg” and Mo Gilligan? Does the Minister agree that private ownership will dilute, rather than enrich, broadcasters’ programming?

Julia Lopez: There is a fundamental misunderstanding that private ownership and being a public service broadcaster are at odds with each other. The whole point of what we are trying to achieve is to get capital investment and have a distinct public service broadcasting remit. We hope that that blend will sustain Channel 4 long into the future. It is important that those who are not in favour of privatisation answer some of the fundamental questions about the long-term trends that concern us as a Government.

Jason McCartney: How do the proposals genuinely fit in with our levelling-up agenda? What protections and safeguards would be put in place to ensure that Channel 4’s HQ not only stays in Leeds, but continues to flourish there? What safeguards can be put on Channel 4’s excellent commitment to quality regional TV production so that it can continue to flourish, particularly because Channel 4 currently invests more in independent production companies outside London than any other broadcaster and supports thousands of jobs outside London?

Julia Lopez: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about Yorkshire and the importance of ensuring that creative businesses there thrive. We share that fundamental aim. As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), the key thing is that we need broadcasters to wish to retain their public service broadcasting remit, because it includes our ability to impose quotas on production spend, including outside London. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) will know that his area has benefited substantially from that. We are seeking to stitch those kinds of commitments into not only the PSB remit, but the sale process, so that our aims on levelling up align with any future owners’ aims on levelling up.

Jamie Stone: Shall we just remind ourselves of what things were like in the past? When I was growing up, there was an awful lot of pretty mediocre stuff on the box from across the pond, such as “The Lucy Show”, “Lost in Space” or “Batman”. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said, however, we have had a cultural renaissance since then. Today, we have a British broadcasting  product that is the envy of the world. Let us remember that, for the United Kingdom, that equals soft power, which is very important in these dark days. I have a straightforward economic question for the Minister. A new owner will want to make a profit and they will take money out. How will that possibly not impact on the money that would otherwise be spent in genuine local production companies the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including in Scotland?

Julia Lopez: I always enjoy engaging with the hon. Gentleman. The Government do not see “profit” as a dirty word; profit is key to creating investment in the companies and kinds of content that he is concerned about. He is right to celebrate Channel 4. We celebrate it and all the fantastic content that it brings, but this is about maintaining and increasing spend on content. That is why we will have a series of reforms in tomorrow’s broadcasting White Paper that I hope will reassure him of our intentions as a Government to have a sustainable PSB sector. I go back to the point that, through the PSB system, we get commitments in the remit to the kind of news content that he is absolutely right to highlight as incredibly important to our soft power.

Alun Cairns: Channel 4 spent £516 million on original content in 2006. That number fell to £329 million because advertising incomes fell at a similar pace. Does my hon. Friend agree that unless we do something, Channel 4 is at risk of stagnating, and that we can keep a similar news remit, commitment to diversity and investment in nations and regions in a different model?

Julia Lopez: I agree about the fundamental trends that my right hon. Friend highlights, and about some of his concerns. Channel 4 has fundamentally accepted those concerns in providing us with a range of alternative options, which we have looked at very carefully. We believe that the route we are highlighting is right because, through that, we will have a more sustainable public service broadcasting system, and we will be able to maintain the content and our commitments to some of the less commercially viable programming that audiences very much value.

Grahame Morris: During the previous statement, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), told the House that it was difficult to predict the huge surge in the demand for passports once the lockdown restrictions had been lifted. Surely, however, it was possible to predict that over the lockdown period, the demand for Netflix subscriptions would increase dramatically because people did not have any alternative. It is surely also completely predictable that now that those restrictions are lifted, the demand for Netflix subscriptions will decline. That is reflected in subscriptions and share prices. Given the cost of living crisis, why push ahead with forcing a successful, publicly owned Channel 4 to adopt a privately financed model when subscriptions are becoming a luxury that many people and families simply cannot afford?

Julia Lopez: The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that we are not seeking to have a subscription model for Channel 4. On the issues that we have highlighted relating to Netflix, there are trends that predate the pandemic, involving younger audiences, certainly, moving away from linear television and the decline in linear television advertising. The Government think that addressing all those things is incredibly important, because our public service broadcasters produce a whole range of free-to-air products that we want to maintain as free-to-air products. The range of reforms that we will introduce tomorrow are about the sustainability of the whole PSB sector. I hope that that reassures him that his constituents will continue to get high-quality British content long into the future.

Neil Hudson: Up and down the country, public service broadcasters, such as Channel 4, the BBC and ITV, are treasured national assets, delivering vital news, education, entertainment and sport. In rural areas such as mine, people depend on free-to-air terrestrial TV, especially in areas with poor internet coverage. I know that the Government are working on that, and my hon. Friend is working with me to help to improve that situation in rural Cumbria, but please, please can I urge the Government to rethink this Channel 4 privatisation idea? Now is the time to support and bolster our public service broadcasters, not challenge them or lead them to being a competitive, subscription-based service, which is the last thing that our rural communities need.

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for all his work on connectivity in his constituency. I am pleased to say that Cumbria is one of our priority procurements for gigabit roll-out and I look forward to working with him on that. I simply refer him to my previous answers: we would maintain Channel 4 as a free-to-air service. We are not looking for a subscription model. Everything that we are doing seeks to bolster the public service broadcasting sector. I hope that when he sees the context in which this decision has been made, he will feel reassured.

Ben Lake: Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I echo concerns that others have raised that the privatisation of Channel 4 might jeopardise its investment in communities across the UK as part of its public service remit, and its quotas relating to commissioning content in each nation of the United Kingdom. That investment has amounted to more than £77 million in Wales in the past 10 years, and supported over 200 jobs in 2019 alone. Will the Minister elaborate on how the Government will seek to ensure that that valuable contribution continues, even if privatisation proceeds?

Julia Lopez: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the importance of creative investment in his region. I cannot be too detailed at the moment, because the White Paper is coming out tomorrow, but I hope that he will have taken heart from my comments about how we can put quotas in the public service broadcasting remit to ensure a certain level of non-London production spend and investment in our regions and nations.

Simon Jupp: Independent production companies across our nations and regions rely on Channel 4’s current operating model. Channel 4 is an  important public service broadcaster, but that does not mean that it has to be owned by the Government. Will my hon. Friend explain how levels of independent production can be protected as the channel is sold?

Julia Lopez: In having a more sustainable public service broadcasting system, we seek to not only maintain investment and content production, but expand them. If we did not make the series of reforms that we seek to, we would be concerned about the withering of something that we believe audiences and the creative economy cherish. When we are able to provide further details, I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured by some of the things that we hope to do in this field.

Mike Amesbury: This is not levelling up, is it, Minister? It is levelling down. It is closing down independent producers, largely in the north of England. For the supply chain, it will mean laying off up to 2,000 workers. Look, cut the ideological rubbish and think again. Make your mark as a Minister and put this in the bin.

Julia Lopez: I am not sure that I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for his slightly demeaning approach. I do not think that I have been particularly ideological in anything that I have said today; I have been clear that the reforms we seek to make are about the sustainability of the public service broadcasting sector that I value, he values, this House values and—most importantly—audiences value. We need to make sure that the PSB sector is sustainable. The Opposition can bury their head in the sand when it comes to current trends, but fundamentally, the reforms that we are bringing forward tomorrow aim to ensure that the things that the nation values culturally, democratically and economically are taken forward in tomorrow’s broadcasting system.

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) knows that he should not address the Minister directly like that.

Rob Butler: Having worked as a news presenter both at the BBC and at Channel Five, my feeling is categorically that the commitment to high-quality journalism is just as strong in the private sector as in the public sector. Rightly, much has been made of the calibre of some of Channel 4’s programming, but tonight’s schedule includes “The Great Home Transformation”, “Grand Designs: The Streets”, “Bling Ring: Hollywood Heist” and “Shocking Emergency Calls UK”. I assume that the Minister might agree that those programmes could just as easily be produced by a private sector owner.

Julia Lopez: I very much enjoyed my hon. Friend’s contribution to the reception celebrating 25 years of Channel Five. The channel has made some very interesting news investments recently; it has taken up top-quality presenters and has really invested in its news content. That proves that private sector investment in our broadcasters can mean higher-quality content that is more attuned to what audiences of the 21st century want. I welcome the interest of any company that wants to do to Channel 4 what has happened to Channel Five, with the high-quality programming that it provides.

Matt Western: I may have my facts wrong, but as I understand it, Channel 4 is phenomenally successful. Its subscription service levels are something like a third higher than Netflix’s in the UK, and All 4 is the largest subscription service in this country. Channel 4 does not cost the taxpayer anything, yet it generates £1 billion per year for the UK economy. Other than the scrutiny of Government, what is not to like?

Julia Lopez: The Government are thinking carefully about the fundamental sustainability and future of the Channel 4 model. The hon. Gentleman may be aware of two key points about Channel 4: it does not retain ownership of its intellectual property, and any borrowing it does sits on the public balance sheet. Given its dependence on linear advertising, we have concerns, looking at viewer trends, that that model will be difficult to sustain if Channel 4 is to continue to make the investment in content that I think we all want. We are therefore looking afresh at what Channel 4 needs, not only to sustain itself, but to grow. I hope that what we bring forward will help the hon. Gentleman to understand how this reform sits within a wider set of reforms to sustain our public service broadcasters.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: We have seen some excellent examples of public service broadcasting. I grew up not too far from the Central Independent Television studios in Nottingham and have been a fan of Channel 4 over the years, particularly “Fifteen to One”, “Football Italia”, and my favourite, “The Crystal Maze”. I am not too sure which zone the Opposition are in today, but does the Minister agree that this deal not only makes really good financial sense for the Government, but allows the purchasers of Channel 4 to raise capital to produce even more of the independent programming that we all value?

Julia Lopez: I very much welcome the opportunity to talk in this House about “The Crystal Maze” and the fantastic content that Channel 4 has produced over the years. Our reforms are fundamentally about making sure that Channel 4 can continue to make the investments that my hon. Friend and I both want in that kind of unique, fun and distinctive programming.

Margaret Ferrier: All 4 is the UK’s largest free-of-charge streaming service, providing entertainment and educational programming across the UK, without regard to users’ income, which is particularly important in this economic crisis. How can the Government believe that removing that service will benefit low-income families?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and her concern, but I do not think that anything we seek to do in relation to Channel 4 would deprive low-income families of free-to-air content on it. Channel 4 has made really great strides in the digital space. We think that that will be attractive to any future buyer, and that any future buyer would seek not only to sustain that, but expand it.

Jim Shannon: I am convinced that the Minister believes in the importance of maintaining an impartial media. At a time when the phrase “fake news” has risen to prominence, that is vital. Furthermore,  it is critical for the Minister to state that the integrity of independent journalism is a priority, and that the Government are at pains to maintain it. Can she confirm that for Hansard, please?

Julia Lopez: I always welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments and his perspective from Strangford. As I hope I have reassured him through my comments today, this is about the fundamental sustainability of the public service broadcasting sector. If channels wish to remain PSBs, they will still take on the obligations that the Government place on them through their remit, which can, importantly, include the production of impartial news content. I hope that the reforms that we bring forward will assure him that such remits will be taken forward and sustained, so that we have high-quality, important journalism going forward.

Points of Order

Lucy Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I believe that the Father of the House also wishes to make a point of order, but I will come to the shadow Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport afterwards. I assume that her point of order relates to something that happened in the urgent question, so the Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure might like to stay for it.

Peter Bottomley: If the other point of order is about the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to wait.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you.

Lucy Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you advise me on whether you have received notice that there will be a statement tomorrow? If not, what advice would you give the House about the very important White Paper, given that we are expecting Prorogation today, that the business will fall very early, and that there will be very little opportunity for statements and oral interrogation?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. My understanding, from what the Minister said, was that there had been a plan to make a statement tomorrow to coincide with the publishing of the White Paper. Obviously, if tomorrow is a sitting day, it is possible to have urgent questions or statements. Does the Minister want to add anything to that?

Julia Lopez: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was advised by my officials that we had put in for a statement tomorrow.

Rosie Winterton: That would be an oral statement, I imagine?

Julia Lopez: We are awaiting confirmation of whether it will be written or oral. We put in notice of our intention to publish the White Paper tomorrow, and are waiting to hear whether there will be a written or oral statement.

Rosie Winterton: It will be possible to make an oral statement tomorrow, should the Minister wish to, and for there to be an urgent question then, if tomorrow ends up being a sitting day. There are a number of imponderables, but I hope that that explains the various options available. I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: May I say first, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I think we have the sense from both the Chair and the Chamber that the House would wish this to be an oral statement that the Government do actually manage to make, so that those of us who want to do so can question the Government on it?
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and this is a separate point. During the exchanges on the urgent question, I saw a copy of a personalised letter delivered by post from the Labour leader to named constituents of mine, asking them to vote on 5 May, the day of the local elections. I want to know whether the Electoral Commission has approved this as part of a local election expense, or whether it is a national election expense. I should like to know whether the Electoral Commission will answer that question this week rather than next week, whether it would require evidence to be gathered both by itself and by the police lest there should be a case afterwards, and whether Mr Speaker might be able to take this up at 4 pm, when he is due to have a private meeting on the Electoral Commission.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but it is not really a matter for the Chair. Obviously, as he mentioned, there are questions that he can raise with the Electoral Commission. I rather think that letters are sent out during election campaigns, from different party leaders—but, as I have said, this is not really a matter for the Chair, and as the hon. Gentleman said, he could raise it with the Electoral Commission should he so wish.

Stephen Hammond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. In last week’s privileges debate, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) mentioned a number of constituencies in the House, and supposedly quoted constituents. May I ask first, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is normal practice to inform Members that their constituencies are to be referred to in that particular way, and secondly, whether it is normal practice to advise Members representing the constituents whom they are quoting? I should add that I notified the right hon. Gentleman of my intention to make this point  of order.

Rosie Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. Obviously the Chair is not responsible for the content of hon. Members’ speeches. The guide to courtesies in the Chamber says that Members should notify colleagues if they are going to refer to them in the Chamber, other than making passing references to public statements; if they intend to table questions that specifically affect those colleagues’ constituencies; or if they intend to visit a colleague’s constituency. It may therefore be felt that Members should inform colleagues if they intend to quote extensively from one of their constituents, but I think that that would apply especially if a Member was intending to make a political point about the colleague concerned, as opposed to, perhaps, quoting from correspondence that might have been received. Obviously the hon. Gentleman has informed the leader of the Liberal Democrats of his point of order, so he may wish to pursue the matter further with him.

Christine Jardine: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister repeated his claim that there are more people in employment now than there were when the pandemic began. However, the chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Prime Minister when he made that assertion previously in February, telling him that it was misleading. May I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what the House can and should do if a Minister repeats a claim which that Minister has been directly and categorically told by a relevant authority is misleading?

Rosie Winterton: I must stress again that the Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ speeches, but obviously it is important for information given to the House to be accurate. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order, and that, if necessary, the matter will be addressed appropriately and action taken to correct the record if it is considered necessary.

Import of Products of Forced Labour From Xinjiang (Prohibition)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Brendan O'Hara: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the import of products made by forced labour in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region; to require all companies importing products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that the manufacture of those products has not involved forced labour; and for connected purposes.
The Bill has two simple aims: aims that are already deeply enshrined in our international human rights obligations, and which we now wish to implement. The first is to prohibit the import of products made by forced labour in the Xinjiang region, and the second is to require all companies importing products from Xinjiang to the UK to provide proof that their manufacture has not involved forced labour. I do not believe for a moment that this is in any way controversial, or is something to which the people of the United Kingdom would object. Indeed, I am convinced that people across these islands would want to know that what they pick up in their local supermarket or hardware store, or purchase from an online retailer, has not been made by slave labour.
In 2021, in its annual report on people trafficking, the US State Department reported:
“In Xinjiang, the government is the trafficker. Authorities use threats of physical violence, forcible drug intake, physical and sexual abuse, and torture to force detainees to work in adjacent or off-site factories or worksites producing garments, footwear, carpets, yarn, food products, holiday decorations, building materials, extractives, materials for solar power equipment and other renewable energy components, consumer electronics, bedding, hair products, cleaning supplies, personal protective equipment, face masks, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and other goods—and these goods are finding their way into businesses and homes around the world.”
That is why, in December 2021, President Biden signed into law an Act, which had passed through Congress with support on both sides of the aisle, to ensure that
“all goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part”
in Xinjiang could not enter the United States unless businesses could prove that what they were importing had not been produced with forced labour. The Act puts the United States way ahead of the rest of the international community in confronting China’s abuse of the Uyghurs, because, crucially, it makes the assumption that goods coming from Xinjiang are made with forced labour, and businesses will have to prove that that is not the case before they can be brought into the country.
The US legislation has received widespread support from human rights campaigners and the Uyghur diaspora. Nury Turkel, a United States-educated Uyghur-American lawyer and a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, has challenged countries that are reluctant to follow the US lead on this issue, asking, “How do you propose to get China to change without going after the most important thing to the Chinese Government, which is their economic interest?” He is absolutely right, because whether we like it or not, the only thing that will make the Chinese Government change their behaviour is the imposition of meaningful economic sanctions. I think that consumers  here in the United Kingdom would welcome the confidence that when they purchase goods that have been produced or imported from China, they are not inadvertently complicit in China’s horrific human rights abuses.
In 2020, the UK Government said that they would
“continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights norms, both bilaterally with China, and at the UN alongside our international partners.”
There is, however, no evidence whatsoever that that approach has worked, and it is clear that China has not paid the slightest heed to what the UK Government—or, indeed, anyone else—has had to say about its human rights record. Now, perhaps, with the United States increasing the pressure and leading the way with this new legislation, it is time for the UK and others to follow.
On Wednesday night the Government tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that recognised the serious problem of products produced as a result of slavery and human trafficking entering the supply chain in NHS procurement. It has been known for some time that billions of pounds’-worth of NHS medical equipment has been sourced in whole or in part from forced labour in Xinjiang. That fact was recognised earlier this month, with Lord Blencathra saying:
“Despite widespread reports of forced labour in that region, our supply chain laws have failed to prevent such procurement.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 2011.]
It is an outrage that our healthcare workers have been forced to put on PPE that originated in the forced labour camps of Xinjiang. Something has to be done about it, and I applaud the work done by the World Uyghur Council and the British Medical Association on highlighting the scandal of PPE procurement that resulted in Uyghur slave-made goods flooding into the UK and into the NHS in particular.
I welcome the Government’s amendment that recognises the scale of the problem and gives the Secretary of State the power to do something about it, but it is not, in and of itself, the answer. It cannot be seen as anything more than a welcome first step in tackling this issue. The wording of the amendment is weak, as it merely states:
“The Secretary of State must by regulations make such provision as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate with a view to eradicating the use in the health service in England of goods or services that are tainted by slavery and human trafficking.”
That amendment should have been far more explicit. It should have stated categorically that anything tainted by slavery or human trafficking would not be permitted to enter the supply chain of NHS procurement, and that the onus for proving that it had not come from the forced labour camps of Xinjiang should be on those importing the equipment. But it is a first step, and having formally recognised the problem that the NHS is being flooded by such goods and products, we must now work to ensure that all other sectors of our economy exclude products that are tainted by slavery or forced labour. There is only one way of doing that, and that is through legislation.
We would all like to believe that slavery has been consigned to the pages of history. Sadly, we know that that is not the case and that this abhorrent practice is still widespread in parts of the world, including in China where many of the 1 million to 2 million Uyghurs who have disappeared are working under forced labour  conditions. We also know that, despite claiming to have ethical business models and to be champions of best practices in safeguarding human rights, there is credible evidence to suggest that many recognisable high street brands are complicit in using exploited Uyghur forced labour in their supply chains. That means that, as consumers, we have no idea if the clothes we wear, the phones we carry and the variety of other everyday consumer goods we take for granted have been made in these forced labour camps before arriving on our high streets.
This has gone on for far too long, with companies and entire countries turning a blind eye to modern slavery in the interests of continuing the supply of consumer goods and maximising commercial profit. It has to stop, and in the absence of a copper-bottomed commitment by the companies to make it stop, we will have to follow the lead of Congress and legislate to make it stop. If these companies are telling the truth, and if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear from legislation such as this.
Whether we like it or not, the global economy is tainted by Uyghur slavery and forced labour, and China’s treatment of the Uyghurs is a challenge for the world and a test of just how robust the international community’s commitment is to universal human rights when it comes into conflict with multinational commercial interests. We cannot now pretend that we do not know what is happening in Xinjiang. We can no longer be blissfully unaware that so much of what we consume is the product of slave labour. And we cannot kid ourselves on that we cannot do anything about it.
Loose arrangements, voluntary codes, finger wagging and sage advice have, by and large, failed to stop companies and importers being extremely lax in their attitude to weeding out anything that may have been manufactured or originated using slave labour. Similarly, harsh condemnation,  desperate urging and impassioned persuasion have all failed to shift China’s policy one iota, and that is why the time has come for legislation. That is why this Bill’s time has come, and why being part of that united international front against modern-day slavery is going to get the companies to comply and get China to change its ways.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Brendan O’Hara, Ms Nusrat Ghani, Rushanara Ali, Patricia Gibson, Jim Shannon, Debbie Abrahams, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chris Law, Fiona Bruce, Patrick Grady, Liz Saville Roberts and Siobhain McDonagh present the Bill.
Brendan O’Hara accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 May, and to be printed (Bill 309).

Elections Bill: Programme (No.2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Elections Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7 September 2021 (Elections Bill (Programme)):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(2) That the Lords Amendments be considered in the following order, namely: 22, 23, 86, 1 to 21, 24 to 85, 87 to 126.
Subsequent stages
(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

Elections Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments
[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill, Session 2021-22, HC 233; Seventh Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, Session 2021-22, HC 911. Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Elections Bill, HC 597, and the Government’s response, HC1133; Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 7 September 2021 and 14 September 2021 on the Elections Bill, HC 597; Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 1 March 2022 on the work of the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, HC 1066; and Correspondence between the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities of 12 April 2022 and 25 April 2022.]

Kemi Badenoch: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) to (i) to the words restored to the Bill.
Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23.
Lords amendment 86, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 1 to 21, 24 to 85 and 87 to 126.

Kemi Badenoch: The Bill has returned to the Commons after wide-ranging and often intense debate in the other place. I am grateful to my colleagues there, Lord True, Baroness Scott and Earl Howe, for their efforts in ensuring that the Bill was able to benefit from that scrutiny. The Bill delivers on key manifesto commitments to protect our democracy as well as a range of recommendations from consultations, parliamentarians, Select Committees, international observers and electoral stakeholders.
I will come to the more positive highlights of the Bill’s passage shortly, but I must, with regret, begin with the areas where the Government cannot agree with the changes made. We disagree with Lords amendment 86, tabled by Lord Willetts, Lord Woolley, Baroness Lister of Burtersett and the Lord Bishop of Coventry, which suggests a long list of new documents that could be used as a form of identification at polling stations, including non-photographic documents such as a bank statement, a council tax letter, a P45 or P60 form. The Government have been clear that the most straightforward and secure way of confirming someone’s identity is photographic identification. The Electoral Commission found this to be the best approach to pursue in the pilots undertaken by the Government in 2018 and 2019.

Margaret Greenwood: Does the Minister share the concern raised by Mencap that the introduction of voter ID could result in another barrier to people with a learning disability participating in elections?

Kemi Badenoch: The answer is no, we do not share that concern. We have conducted extensive pilots and we recognise that many people are concerned about the Bill, which is why we carried out extensive engagement explaining why there need not be any concerns about additional barriers on voter ID.
We also have the experience of Northern Ireland, where photographic identification has been required since 2003, following its introduction by the last Labour Government after the non-photographic model that had been in place since 1985 was deemed insufficient to stamp out fraud. A free voter card will be available for voters without suitable photographic identification and we are working closely with the Electoral Commission, which will deliver a clear and comprehensive communication campaign on the new requirements. While the list of acceptable identifications in the Bill is wide-ranging, I wish to reassure this House that, should further forms of photo identification become available and be sufficiently secure, the powers in the Bill are such that additional identification can be added or removed as necessary without the need for further primary legislation. For these reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment.
I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23, which seek to remove clauses 14 and 15 from the Bill. The purpose of clause 14 is to make provision for the introduction of a strategy and policy statement setting out guidance to which the Electoral Commission must have regard in the discharge of its functions. Some parliamentarians have claimed that this duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement will weaken the commission’s operational independence, which is not correct. This duty will not allow the Government to direct the commission’s decision making, nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out those other duties. Clause 15 simply expands the role of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission and empowers it to examine the commission’s performance of its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement.
In the other place, technical amendments to these clauses were made in Committee before the clauses were removed on Report. If this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22, the series of amendments we have proposed to the words so restored to the Bill will reinstate those technical amendments to clause 14. Amendments (c) and (f) to (h) reflect the parliamentary consequences of recent machinery of government changes. The other technical changes to the words so restored to the Bill, amendments (a) and (b), will ensure that the strategy and policy statement must not relate to the devolved functions of the Electoral Commission. Consequently, amendments (d), (e) and (i) provide that Scottish and Welsh Ministers are no longer statutory consultees on the strategy and policy statement. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the House to disagree with Lords amendments 22 and 23 and to agree to amendments (a) to (i) and to the words so restored to the Bill.
Given the strength of feeling, although the Government strongly reject the characterisation that clause 14 will weaken the commission’s operational independence, we  have heard the concerns and tabled amendments (a) to (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. Amendment (a) will require the Secretary of State, when preparing a statement, to have regard to the duty placed on the commission by section 145(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules set out in that Act. Further, the amendment will prohibit the statement from including reference to specific investigatory or enforcement activity. That provides further reassurance on the commission’s operational independence.
On the parliamentary approval procedure in relation to the statement, the Government’s view is that the affirmative resolution procedure will provide both Houses of Parliament with appropriate opportunities to debate and scrutinise the statement in full before determining whether to approve or reject it. However, we have listened to the concerns raised and, to provide further reassurance, the Government tabled amendments (c) to (h), (j) and (k) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23. These amendments provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny of a statement that has been subject to statutory consultation under new section 4C of the 2000 Act by providing both Houses with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval. The amendments also make consequential changes to clause 14.
Amendments (b) and (i) in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23 will require the Secretary of State to publish a response to the statutory consultation on the statement, and to respond to requests from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission for the statement to be revised.
Taken together, these provisions, in addition to those already built into clause 14 relating to parliamentary approval and consultation, should provide significant reassurance to Members of both Houses on the concerns about the strategy and policy statement. In particular, the amendments put beyond doubt the question of whether the statement could be used to unduly influence individual enforcement activity or to give guidance without the Secretary of State considering the commission’s monitoring and compliance duties.
On clause 25, the Government have listened to the concerns raised by parliamentarians and by representatives of civil society organisations in recent meetings. Lords amendment 44 means that any order to remove or vary the description of a category of third-party campaigner can be made only where it gives effect to a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, which will provide a necessary safeguard against any future Government who potentially seek to misuse the clause.
The Government have also carefully considered the concerns relating to clause 27. These measures were not designed to disproportionately affect any particular group. Given the strength of feeling on this issue, the Government tabled Lords amendment 50 to remove the clause from the Bill. I ask the House to support this amendment.
It is standard practice for the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of Acts following Royal Assent, but we took on board the desire to ensure in the legislation that that scrutiny took place. Lords amendment 80 supports the joint aim on both sides of the House that the operation of these measures is assessed following the implementation of the Bill, while  ensuring sufficient time has passed and processes are embedded enough for the scrutiny to be meaningful and effective. For these reasons, I commend the amendment to the House.
Lords amendments 1 to 5 make changes to clause 7, narrowing its scope so that the provisions do not unintentionally prevent legitimate campaigning by candidates outside the time that a person completes their postal ballot or legitimate opinion polling activity. Lords amendments 112 to 116 make the same changes in relation to Northern Ireland.
Lords amendments 9 to 12, 45, 64 to 79, 81 to 85, 87, 105 to 110 and 118 to 124 are technical and clarifying amendments. As the House will be aware, the Bill represents an extensive and ambitious portfolio of work in a complex and detailed body of law. The amendments ensure the measures are fit for purpose and operate as intended.
Following extensive engagement with the devolved Administrations in the preparation and drafting of the policy, the Scottish and Welsh Governments unfortunately declined to consent to applying certain measures to devolved polls. It was therefore necessary for the Government to table Lords amendments 6 to 8, 13, 14, 24 to 28, 30 to 33, 37, 38, 40 to 43, 46 to 48, 51 to 63, 88 to 102, 117, 125 and 126 to ensure the measures apply to reserved matters only. I therefore ask the House to agree to these necessary amendments.
Lords amendments 15 to 19 strengthen the provisions in clause 9 that seek to expand the provision for voters with disabilities from a narrow and restrictive provision specific to blind and partially sighted voters to one that supports the needs of a wider range of voters with disabilities, increasing the overall accessibility of our elections. For too long, we have had a requirement in law to provide a single device, which has hindered innovation in this area. We are grateful for the work of Lord Holmes, who worked with both the Government and external organisations to strengthen these measures in the Bill by specifically highlighting the importance of supporting electors’ ability to vote independently and secretly, all while maintaining our policy aim of moving away from a limited prescriptive approach to more flexibility and innovation. These amendments will also enable the support for disabled voters to be monitored effectively through Electoral Commission reporting, and will require in law that there is guidance to promote consistency, for which returning officers must have regard. That guidance will be developed in consultation with organisations representing people with disabilities. For those reasons, I commend the amendments to the House.
The Government also support Lords amendments 20, 21, 103, 104 and 111 tabled by Lord Hayward. These amendments make sensible changes to the rules for candidates standing in elections, which were first raised in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Lords amendment 21 will allow candidates the additional option of citing their local authority area on the ballot paper for UK parliamentary elections, as they already can for local elections. That will make it easier for candidates to demonstrate locality while preserving protection for their personal safety. I particularly thank my hon. Friend for raising this topic and I hope he is pleased with that outcome.
Lords amendments 20, 103, 104 and 111 widen the scope of the current provisions concerning the use of commonly used names to allow candidates to include  on their nomination paper any name they commonly use as a forename or surname, such as their middle name. This is already facilitated in practice by returning officers, but it is not provided for in existing electoral law, so it is right that the Bill is amended for consistency. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lords amendments 34, 35 and 36, tabled by Baroness Noakes, are technical amendments that bring this clause into line with more standard accounting practices, so I commend them to the House. Finally, Lords amendments 49, 29 and 39 were brought forward in the other House by Lord Hodgson. I am pleased to confirm that the Government are supporting them. They will introduce a duty on the Electoral Commission to produce a statutory code of conduct, providing much-needed certainty for third-party campaigners on how to comply with the rules related to third-party campaigning.

Alex Norris: It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. We have said from the outset that this is a bad Bill. Rather than opening up our democracy, it closes it down and puts up barriers to participation, apart from for foreign donors, who will now have an unfettered ability to flood our democracy with donations from the comfort of an offshore tax haven.
We will get to some of the criticisms shortly, but I want to recognise, as the Minister did, some of the progress that has clearly been made in the other place.  I pay tribute to my colleagues and teammates Baroness Hayman and Lord Khan for their work in this area. First, I come to Lords amendments 15 to 19, on assistance with voting for persons with disabilities. We raised this issue in Committee and during consideration of the remaining stages. I did not then and do not now believe it was the Government’s intention to make voting harder for disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted. But those who have been concerned about this matter have campaigned well and made their case strongly, and I am glad that it is has been recognised in the Bill. Like plenty of right hon. and hon. Members, I will be keeping an interest in this area, to make sure that returning officers continue to make voting accessible for everybody, regardless of disability, at every polling station.
Lords amendment 50 would remove clause 27, deleting the provision on joint campaigning that meant that spending by one entity in a joint campaign had to be counted by all entities. That never made sense to us and we are glad to see it dispensed with entirely. In his letter to his colleagues in the other place, Lord True paid tribute to the campaigning efforts of the TUC and of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation. He was right to do so, as their campaign was a brilliant one and I, for one, am glad it succeeded. Of course we will be supporting that this afternoon. Also, I am pleased to see that addition made via Lords Amendment 80 to wire in post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I would have such a provision in every Bill, as it is a good way of doing business. Beyond that, we do not have an issue with the tightening of provisions relating to secrecy, undue influence, candidate names, expenditure or electronic  material. However, I will finish this section of my speech with a minor whinge, which I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. Lords Amendment 21, a Government amendment, deals with home addresses on ballot papers. Currently, as the Minister said, we or those who challenge us in elections to this place have a choice of having our home address or the constituency where we live on the ballot paper. For security reasons, that is a very good idea. Not only is it important for safety, but it allows voters to have a sense of where we are from. This provision adds a third option: we could specify which local authority we live in. That does not develop the original intent, because I do not think there is a case for safety there; I think this is there more for candidate vanity, and I am not sure what problem it is solving. So I am keen to learn from the Minister what needs to be addressed with that provision. It is not egregious enough for us to divide on, but I am keen to understand a bit more about why it is necessary.
I move on to the points of greater difference—the outstanding issues facing us. This Bill is littered with various things we have voted against throughout the process, in relation to voting, to political finance and to electoral systems, but today we are really down to just two issues: voter ID, as set out in part 1 of the Bill; and the independence of the Electoral Commission, as set out in part 3. The other place has done important work to help save the Government from themselves in this area, and it is sad that the Minister is not minded to accept that salvation, particularly on Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86. We have opposed and continue to oppose the introduction of voter ID. It is a solution in search of a problem; there is scant evidence of voter personation. In 2019, there were two major sets of elections—council elections in the May and a general election in the December—and in that year there was precisely one conviction for personation.

Christine Jardine: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the disproportionate effect that evidence suggests photographic voter ID might have on ethnic minority voting rates?

Alex Norris: I do have concern about who will miss out as a result of this. We know from the Government’s own figures that there are 2 million people without the right sort of photo ID. I see some shaking of heads from Conservative Members who are still listening to the debate, but it is not us making this point—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that the poorest are six times more likely than the best off to miss out under the Government’s proposals. The key thing is: when all of us who can vote next Thursday stand in line to vote—and we hope the lines will be long—we are more likely to be hit by lightning three times than to be queuing behind someone who is committing an act of voter personation. Once again, this is a solution in search of a problem.
We have seen this in the pilots as well. As the Minister mentioned, the Government have done pilots in this area and if what happened in those were replicated across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be unable to do so. Again, that is a demonstration of why Lords amendment 86 is so important and why this is such a bad idea. This amendment does not delete the voter ID provision, as would be my preference and  as we have sought to do in Committee and on Report. Instead, it just makes things a little easier by expanding the list of accepted ID at polling stations. That is a worthy compromise, and I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take it.
The Minister has talked about the provision of a voter card from the local authority, but she has not yet said who is going to fund that. May we have a concrete assurance that that will come from central Government funding and it will not be put on the rate payers? Will she also assure us that thoughtful consideration has been given to the pressures on our electoral administrators, since the demand for these voter cards will peak at the same time as demand for postal votes, voter registration and proxy votes? Our electoral administrators, who do such a great job, are already overburdened, so I would love to know what assessment had been done of the capacity to deliver those things. The Lords amendment would ameliorate many of those challenges.
We always seek to be helpful to the Government, and Conservative Members will know that their manifesto pledge on voter ID was that they intended to introduce simply voter ID, not photographic ID—the word “photographic” was not mentioned. So the solution proposed in the amendment is very much in line with what they have committed to. We know that the alternative, which is forcing through photographic ID, is about a form of ID that more than 2 million voters lack, according to the Government’s own figures. This was an opportunity to do better and the Government should have taken it. We certainly will be pressing that point.
Lords amendments 22 and 23 remove clauses that undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. It is worth saying, although it is staggering that this needs to be said, that it is not for this Government or any Government, be they Labour or Conservative, to dictate the priorities of an independent watchdog, especially one that regulates our own elections. One would think that that would be axiomatic, but we have seen this creeping culture of the Government trying to put their thumb on the scale, whether in the scandal with one of our former colleagues at the end of last year or in the debacle last week relating to the privileges motion. This very much sits within the same family, and although the public do not necessarily take interest in the granular details of particular bits of legislation such as this one, they are starting to pick up on this constant pattern of injustice and unfair play. This really is another example of it.
Let us do a useful thought experiment: if something like this happened in a nearby democracy, or perhaps a country where we were concerned about the future of its democracy, and it said that it wanted its Executive to be able to direct its electoral commission, would we not say that that did not feel right? I do not think that it feels right in this case. Although he is not in his place, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and to the Electoral Commission, which has made persuasive arguments for the protection of the commission’s independence. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would not have broad-ranging powers or interest in directing the work of the commission. In the annex to his response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, the Secretary of State said:
“The Strategy and Policy Statement (clause 15) will provide an opportunity for the Government, with the approval of the UK Parliament, to outline a clear articulation of principles and priorities for the Commission to have regard to when going about their work—particularly in areas where…the Commission are exercising the significant amount of discretion they are afforded in terms of activity, priorities, and approach.”
I do not think that quite chimes with what the Minister says: it is clear that the Government do fully intend to use these powers significantly and we should be very concerned about that.
I want briefly to reference the Government amendment in lieu. It is better, and it is welcome to hear that the Secretary of State’s statements will need to pass both Houses; that greater degree of scrutiny for Parliament is good. Similarly, the point around individual investigations is a welcome clarification, but it does not change the basic question: why are we doing this at all? There has been no clarity from the Minister previously or in her opening remarks today about what the problem is for which a solution is sought. We strongly believe that the regulation of elections must be independent, impartial and free from political control, and the Government’s proposals, whatever might be said, challenge and compromise this principle, so I think it is very surprising that we are having this conversation.
I will finish there. The problems boil down to two points: voter ID and the Electoral Commission. We will continue to push those points and defend the very good amendments made in the other place.

Chris Clarkson: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I have at every stage of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is nice to be on the home stretch after so long, especially as she very bravely took over halfway through. I know today could potentially be quite a long one and we are all keen to get to Prorogation so that those of us with candidates can get out on the doorsteps campaigning in the local elections, so I will not take too long.
I spoke previously about my psephological exuberance, and I am afraid that today I will expose my psephological exasperation at some of the amendments that have come back from the Lords. I am, as we would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Lords, a keen advocate of the upper Chamber and the excellent work it can do in refining legislation, as has been the case here. As such, I do not intend to speak to the amendments the Government are accepting; I think they speak for themselves, but I do welcome the refinements they present. Instead I shall touch briefly on Lords amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Lord Judge and then on amendment 86 in the name of Lord Willetts.
On amendments 22 and 23, clauses 14 and 15 will allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to clearly articulate the principles and priorities for the commission to be guided by when discharging its duties, especially where primary legislation is not explicit and where the commission enjoys a great degree of latitude in priorities and approach. Fundamentally, we should have confidence that there is a clear framework underpinning the role and duties of the commission in its work. At present, just three of the sitting commissioners have any electoral history of their own and, however august their CVs may be— and I absolutely accept that they are—they are not  experts in elections or electoral law, nor do they have any lived, practical experience that informs their decision making.
Setting appropriate thematic guidance is wholly appropriate and clauses 14 and 15 give the power to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to approve that guidance. Despite some of the alarmist talk about this part of the Bill from those on the Opposition Benches, this does not take away from the independence of the commission, and I think if anyone were to be truly honest they would agree that the commission has not steered entirely clear of controversy or perceived bias in its past. We know at least of one recent case where its decision was overturned, in relation to the referendum; in fact, a former head of the commission was actively campaigning in that referendum. I want a robust commission, not one that plays fast and loose with the rules and gives itself carte blanche to do as it pleases. That said, I will be supporting Government amendments (a) to (k), which refine the Government’s approach.
Amendment 86 seems, I am afraid, to be another attempt to override the voter ID provisions of the Bill. The specified list of IDs, including the freely available Government ID to be introduced, provides a wide-ranging yet robust range of options to validate the right to vote. We have heard some disgraceful attempts to paint voter ID as a form of voter suppression against certain minority groups. I was told by a member of the Labour party in the Bill Committee that I, as an LGBT Member, would not be able to vote because of this new provision; it was absolutely disgusting. This is dog-whistle politics at its worst and Opposition Members should be ashamed.
In fact, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on this matter and I will read from the judgment:
“I consider that if persons have confidence in the electoral system by the elimination or reduction in voter fraud then they might be encouraged to vote by virtue of their increased confidence in the electoral process.”
In other words, the Supreme Court thinks this makes it more likely that people will vote.
According to work conducted by the Electoral Commission, two thirds of voters support voter ID, just 4% of people surveyed did not have any of the qualifying ID in the Bill, and just 17% of those people said they would not take up the freely available ID. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) is chuntering from a sedentary position; if people choose to absent themselves, that is their choice.
Opposing or undermining this measure is at very best to turn a blind eye to the problem. I asked in Committee and on Third Reading and will ask again: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay to steal before we feel we have to act in legislation? [Interruption.] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I am sorry, but I have heard this argument several times and it is spurious. We should want to be the envy of the world by having the most robust electoral system, and that can be achieved by doing what Northern Ireland voters have been doing for a very long time, and what most voters who turn up to the polling station with their polling card think they already have to do: prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote where they are trying to.
3.15 pm

Brendan O'Hara: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore accept that turning up with a polling card proves that we are who we say we are, and if that is the case why does he reject the long list from the Lords? If he accepts that a polling card says who we are, why not the list from the Lords?

Chris Clarkson: No, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to what I said. I said people turn up with a polling card; I did not say that that is an appropriate form of ID. People already assume they have—[Interruption.] No, I did not; I encourage the hon. Gentleman to read Hansard because he clearly was not listening. [Interruption.] No, he was not. An appropriate form of ID is something that will definitively prove who we are.
I can give a perfect example of this. I share an office with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes). His surname is the same as my stepfather’s. I could go and vote on behalf of my stepfather by taking something that demonstrates that I am him, because I can just take it off his desk. That is how unrobust this approach is.

Paul Holmes: My hon. Friend is correct: we do share an office and I enjoy doing so. He has made a completely acceptable point. Opposition Members keep saying that there is no proof of electoral fraud. Does my hon. Friend agree that I can pick up an electoral card from anyone’s doorstep and claim when I turn up at a polling station that I have their name and address with no proof? [Interruption.]; yes, I can. [Interruption.]; yes, I can. I can do that with no proof that that is not me, which exactly shows why we need to introduce voter ID in this Bill.

Chris Clarkson: My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and if the Opposition are saying that there is no proof of this, I can tell them now in relation to Rochdale Borough Council’s election this coming month that a member of the Labour council accepted a caution for electoral fraud—he voted twice. So do not spin the line that this does not happen.

Patrick Grady: Is that not therefore evidence that the current system works? The kind of behaviour the hon. Gentleman’s party colleague, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), has just described is already against the law and will be identified by the polling clerks if someone turns up and tries to vote twice.

Chris Clarkson: As I have said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We do not know how many times this is going on. I ask the hon. Gentleman: how many votes is it okay to steal in Scotland? Is there a different metric—is there a Barnett consequential for electoral fraud? It is ludicrous that this is being opposed, and we have to ask what the motive is from the Opposition Benches; I am pretty sure most sensible people can infer why they oppose it.

Brendan O'Hara: I shall seek to give a calm and reasoned response to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and I rise to speak in favour of Lords amendments 22 and 23, which, as we  have heard, seek to preserve the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission, as well as Lords amendment 86, which says that, if we have to go down the road of providing ID at polling stations, what is deemed as an acceptable form of ID should be greatly extended to allow as many people as possible to participate in our democracy.
Having sat through hour after hour of the Bill Committee searching for evidence that any form of ID was actually necessary, nothing—particularly, I have to say, after the hon. Gentleman’s contribution—will shake me from the belief that there is no need for this. From day one this has been, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, a solution in desperate search of a problem. From the very first day of our evidence sessions, many months ago, I was convinced—I remain convinced—that the desire to produce photographic ID at polling stations is nothing less than a cynical ploy to disenfranchise a sizeable section of the electorate, and to give the Conservative party an advantage on polling day.
I thank the Lords for their valiant efforts to rescue something from this utterly appalling Bill. I know that they did a great deal of work on it and have tried to remove or soften some of its more unpleasant and fundamentally undemocratic aspects, but as I said in Committee, on Second Reading and on Report, the Elections Bill is rotten to its core. The Lords could have gone through the Bill for a month of Sundays and it would still be rotten to its core.
I believe that, in a democracy, the best place for the Bill would be in a chamber of democratic horrors in a political museum, where it would be brought out—along with the Nationality and Borders Bill and the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—to be shown to aspiring politicians with a warning that said, “Look what we nearly did to our democracy.”
When we sent the Bill to the Lords, it was an affront to democracy, and however it was amended, there was not a snowball’s chance in hell that it would return and be anything but an affront to democracy. However, in the spirit that something—anything—is better than nothing, the SNP will support the amendments made in the Lords.
One of the most egregious ideas contained in the Bill was always the plan to politicise the hitherto independent Electoral Commission by placing it under the direction of the Government and having Ministers set its policy direction and strategy. The independence of the Electoral Commission is fundamental to maintaining public confidence and trust in our electoral system. In a healthy democracy, the idea of the independent referee having its strategic direction dictated by the sitting Government beggars belief. Giving this or any future Government the power to direct the work of the commission is fraught with danger, and if the public, campaign groups, political parties and individuals start to believe that the decisions of the commission are politically motivated, or that they are tainted by party political bias, the commission’s trusted position of impartial arbiter will disintegrate in short order.

Christine Jardine: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech with many good points. Does he share my surprise that those on the Government Benches are not prepared to take into account the fact that the  Lords tabled a cross-party amendment to deal with the concern that he and I share about undermining the Electoral Commission? That concern is obviously shared in the other place. Perhaps the Government could take that into account before dismissing that amendment.

Brendan O'Hara: I share the hon. Lady’s concerns. Those great concerns are felt not just on these Benches, but in the other place, as well as beyond Parliament. Among non-government organisations, individuals, trade unions and political parties, there is a genuine fear that our democracy is being undermined.
On our first day of taking evidence in Committee, Professor David Howarth, who served on the commission between 2008 and 2018, said of the idea:
“This would have been unthinkable in my time… I do not think anyone would have ever imagined this was a good idea. It is an open goal for the opponents of western democracy. If you are President Xi, you might think this is the kind of thing you want—all the institutions of the state lined up behind the governing party—but not in this country. It is completely unthinkable.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 39, Q51.]
He is absolutely right. It should be unthinkable, and even at this late stage, I urge Government Members to stand up for democracy, defend the independence of the Electoral Commission and join us in supporting Lords Amendments 22 and 23.
I turn to Lords amendment 86, which would greatly expand the number of forms of identification that would be acceptable for receiving a ballot paper. I have made the SNP position on the principle of voter ID quite clear. That position was confirmed in the Bill Committee’s earliest evidence session, when witness after witness made it clear that personation was not a problem. Even the Government’s star witness was forced to admit that postal vote fraud was a far, far greater problem that had to be tackled, but conveniently, it is not tackled in this Bill. Yet here we are creating solutions for a problem that no one really believes exists, and the Government are rejecting reasonable proposals from the Lords. I regret that the Lords have conceded on the principle of ID cards, but simply extending the acceptable forms of ID would have been a far greater and more reasonable compromise.

Paul Holmes: I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He keeps saying that there is no evidence of voter fraud when it comes to voter identification, so I will very calmly ask him again. If I go to a polling station with somebody else’s voting card and vote on their behalf—that is personation—and that person turns up afterwards to vote for themselves, it is very unlikely to be proven that that is what has happened. The lack of ability to prosecute on that basis is exactly why we need voter identification.

Brendan O'Hara: First, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is breaking the law, and he will, if caught, be punished. Secondly, there is no evidence whatever that that is a widespread practice, but there is great evidence that there are problems with postal voting fraud. The Bill does absolutely nothing to address them. It looks in the wrong place because it is more convenient to those on the Government Benches to look for a problem rather than address a problem, as they, and even their star witnesses, have identified.
I cannot fathom why the Government would object to people to bringing along a birth certificate, a marriage certificate, a credit card, a bank statement that is less than three months old, a national insurance card, a council tax demand letter or a mortgage statement. I just cannot understand.

Christine Jardine: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brendan O'Hara: I will just finish this point. Would the Government really have us believe that there would be an explosion of forged birth certificates being secretly traded outside polling stations; that a thriving black market in dodgy council tax demand letters would emerge, fuelled by desperate party activists; or that eBay would be awash with folk flogging their national insurance card to the highest bidder in a key marginal. It is utter nonsense! They know it is nonsense, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Christine Jardine: On the hon. Gentleman’s point about birth certificates, like many other married women in this country, my professional name is different from my married name, but it has always been accepted by the Passport Office, the bank and every other legal authority I know that my marriage certificate, which has both names on it, is proof that I am the same person. I cannot understand why the Government will not accept it as identification when voting.

Brendan O'Hara: The hon. Lady makes a good point. Sadly, as with so much of the Bill, there is no common sense—indeed, no principle is involved. It is grubby attempt after grubby attempt to game the system in order to secure short-term electoral benefit for the Conservative party. If the price to be paid is a lessoning of participation in elections, I am afraid that is the choice made by Conservative Members.
From the outset we have opposed the Bill as being fundamentally undemocratic. Rather than being improved by its progress through this House, it has become even more undemocratic. I am delighted that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give it legislative consent. I thank the Lords for their attempts to improve the Bill and, in recognition of their efforts, we will support their amendments, but as the old adage says, there are some things in life that you just cannot polish, and this Bill is most certainly one of them.

Beth Winter: rose—

John Martin McDonnell: Follow that!

Beth Winter: How do you follow that?
In the week in which the Government intend to prorogue the House, they have voted to carry over three Bills, and this is the fifth Bill they seek to force through following repeated Government defeats in the Lords. The Government really are losing their grip, and I regret that, in response, they are seeking to grab democracy by the throat.
I wish to confine my comments to Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, which I support. First, let me highlight the extraordinary developments regarding the clauses that affect the work of the Electoral Commission. I express  my support for Lords amendments 22 and 23, which removed what were clauses 15 and 16. As others have said, those clauses gave the Government the power to establish a Government strategy and policy statement for the Electoral Commission, and to place a duty on it to have regard to guidance issued by the Government relating to any of its functions.
3.30 pm
The Bill’s erosion of the commission’s independence gave rise to the letter signed by its chair and all but one of its board members on 21 February this year, which said:
“It is our firm and shared view that the introduction of a Strategy and Policy Statement—enabling the Government to guide the work of the Commission—is inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy. This independence is fundamental to maintaining confidence and legitimacy in our electoral system.”
The letter went on:
“The Commission’s accountability is direct to the UK’s parliaments and should remain so, rather than being subject to government influence.”
For that reason, I urge the Government to think again about the measures.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee also wrote to the Minister only last week to strongly urge the Government to accept the amendments tabled in the House of Lords by Lord Judge that removed clauses 15 and 16, as the Committee recommended in its report. Furthermore, in lieu of any Government support for the amendments, the Committee urged the Government to consider amending the Bill
“to provide that the Electoral Commission is able to depart from the guidance set out in the Statement if it has a statutory duty to do so or if it reasonably believes it is justified in specific circumstances”.
Regrettably, the Government have not done so, which is why I support Lords amendments 22 and 23.
Let me turn to Lords amendment 86, on voter ID, in respect of which I wish to draw some parallels with the Welsh experience. Initially, the Welsh Government withheld legislative consent for the Bill because it affects Welsh elections, because there was an issue with consulting the Welsh Government and because it negatively affected devolved powers. However, the Government have since conceded on some of those concerns and it is welcome that their voter ID proposals will not now apply to Senedd or Welsh council elections.
Although the Senedd has now granted legislative consent, there are still concerns about the Bill in all sorts of respects, but specifically with regard to voter ID. The Welsh Government say that the UK Government plans for voter ID risk making voting harder. Although I welcome the fact that the provisions do not apply to Wales, the inconsistencies between UK parliamentary elections and Welsh elections will cause all sorts of confusion for electors in Wales.
I support Lords amendment 86, which was tabled by Lord Willets and adds an additional list of documents that would be accepted as a form of identification for electors, for the reasons already given. The relevant part of the Bill is discriminatory and will disenfranchise millions of people. We already have extremely low turnouts for elections—the evidence is there—which is why in  Wales we are doing the opposite and looking into different methods to encourage people to turn out to vote.
I will conclude with a quote from our Counsel General, Mick Antoniw, because the Welsh Government remain opposed to the Bill, which they believe—Opposition Members share these views—
“is more about voter suppression and enabling foreign funding than enhancing electoral democracy and integrity.”

Patrick Grady: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), who is essentially right in everything she says.
The scrutiny of this Bill so far has been an absolute travesty of the democracy it is supposed to regulate—the lack of engagement on the Government Benches is testimony to that. The Government changed the scope of the Bill after Second Reading, and crashed it through a Bill Committee, despite the fact that constitutional Bills should be considered in Committee of the whole House. Now the Lords, for their own mysterious reasons, have sent it back, largely with Government corrections and a few meagre concessions. We applaud the Lords on taking a stand on voter ID and the role of the Electoral Commission, but their lordships should have forced the Government into using the Parliament Acts to get the Bill through, given the damage it will do to what remains of Westminster democracy.
The amendments on the right of voters with special needs, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted, to vote independently and in secret are welcome, although they do not go as far as the Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for them to do. Indeed, they do not go as far as the original legislation that this Bill is changing, so once again this is a Bill seeking to solve problems that did not previously exist; it is creating its own problems. There must now be clear guidance on how those provisions are implemented, and careful monitoring and reporting to ensure that those with specific requirements can vote in confidence, in every sense of that word.
It appears from the Minister’s comments that the Government think we should be grateful for the various concessions that respect the devolution settlement and the right of the devolved institutions to manage and regulate their own elections. She said that she had difficulty engaging with Scottish Government Ministers and officials. Well, perhaps if this Government had started the process before the Bill was published, and perhaps if there had been proper prelegislative scrutiny, a lot of that would not have been necessary. The reality, of course, is that the Scottish Parliament has refused to give legislative consent for the Bill as a whole.
What mostly seems to be happening, through these amendments, is the result of a late realisation that all the different electoral cycles in the UK mean that we would never be out of “regulated periods” across the UK, which would make the Tories’ predilection for dark money and AstroTurf campaigning a little trickier. I am not sure that the changes have been made in the best interests of the devolved institutions.
Where the Lords have chosen to take a stand, the Government and this House should be paying close attention. The integrity of the Electoral Commission ought to be protected, and the easiest way to do that is  to support the Lords in their amendment removing the two clauses that would allow Government direction and interference. We demonstrated throughout consideration in Committee and on Report the danger of the Government’s plans to allow for ministerial direction of the commission, which is pretty much unprecedented in western democracies. The Government’s amendments in lieu, such as they are, do not go nearly far enough and are themselves a concession that they were trying to overreach with the powers they put into the Bill, so we should agree with the Lords and just take those clauses out entirely.
The House should also support the Lords on their amendment 86. It is disappointing that they did not remove the clauses on photo ID altogether. Again, throughout the Bill’s progress in this House, we have heard how the requirement to present photo ID will depress turnout and make it more difficult for those who are already in marginalised groups to have their voices heard at the ballot box. We heard that repeatedly in evidence and, as we have heard from other Members, that has been heard by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
We hear Members say, “Well, what level of voter fraud is acceptable?” There is no evidence that voter fraud at the moment is as rife as they are pretending.

Chris Clarkson: I will ask the hon. Gentleman the question again, since he wants to challenge it: what does he think is an acceptable level of voter fraud?

Patrick Grady: The point is that voter fraud, to the extent that it exists—personation, as the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson said—is in single figures. There is no evidence whatsoever that personation is actively affecting the result of any election taking place anywhere across the country.

Chris Clarkson: Even if we accept the premise that it is in single digits, is that acceptable?

Patrick Grady: Of course it is not acceptable, which is why it should be punished to the full extent of the law, which it is. We have heard several times in this debate that if someone votes twice, they have broken the law and they go to jail. That does happen, as we have heard—

Chris Clarkson: rose—

Patrick Grady: I think the ping-pong is supposed to be between this place and the upper House, rather than across the Floor of the Chamber, but I will give way.

Chris Clarkson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some crimes go undetected?

Patrick Grady: I think we are getting slightly philosophical here. The reality is that when voter fraud/personation is detected, it is punished to the full extent of the law. We heard in evidence that it is an incredibly inefficient way to swing the outcome of an election. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) said, people who want to swing the outcome of an election can do so in far more effective ways that are not tackled by the Bill, starting with the kind of postal vote fraud we have heard described. All that this little  ping-pong exchange has done is serve to demonstrate that this is, as others have said, a solution in search of a problem.
The fact that this is ideologically motivated, for the Government’s own reasons, is demonstrated by their unwillingness even to accept the relevant Lords amendment, such as it is. One of the counter-arguments we heard from Government Members was about other circumstances in which ID needs to be presented—for example, when collecting a parcel at the post office. Lords amendment 86 extends acceptable forms of ID for voting to include the kind of ID that would be acceptable in collecting a parcel at a post office counter, so, on the basis of that argument, I am not entirely sure why that is not acceptable to the Government.
The Order Paper notes under the listing of this business that the Scottish Parliament has refused legislative consent for the Bill. Once again the Government are ignoring the Sewel convention and showing their disregard for the devolution settlement. Constituents in Glasgow North have written to me in large numbers opposing this Bill. All of this, alongside the Government’s refusal to accept Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86, simply demonstrates the growing divergence between politics in this place and the direction of travel in Scotland.

Tom Randall: I thought that we also learned in Committee that the voter ID proposals would actually make us a more European country, in that they introduce things that we see in European voting systems. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman disagrees with this divergence, and would have thought he would welcome it if he wants Scotland to be at the heart of Europe.

Patrick Grady: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of European democracy and alignment. The simple answer is that Scotland has one of the widest, most open and transparent franchises that has ever existed in western democracies. It includes 16 and 17-year-olds, asylum seekers—people who have made their home here—and people who are serving certain types of prison sentence, because we want to rehabilitate everyone and bring them back into the democratic fold. That is the franchise that will deliver independence for Scotland. Unlike the UK-wide franchise—[Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to find this highly amusing. They can laugh all they want once Scotland has voted for independence in the next couple of years, because that is the reality; it is not far away now, and it will be achieved on that wide and open franchise, whereas the UK-wide electoral system will be weakened and undermined by this Bill and by the Government’s refusal to accept the Lords amendments before us.

John Martin McDonnell: I apologise to the Minister for being a few minutes late and therefore missing her introduction; I received a green card asking me to visit a constituent who was lobbying me.

Rosie Winterton: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I knew he was here before, out for a very short time, and here for the majority of the Minister’s opening speech.

John Martin McDonnell: The constituent was lobbying on the abolition of imprisonment for public protection, and I am visiting one of her sons in prison, so I felt the need to see her.
I want to make three very simple points. When we  get to this stage in the parliamentary Session, people start to become a bit light-headed, so let us try to concentrate on three issues. I am a member of PACAC, whose Chair, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg), is here. Every time he makes a parliamentary intervention, he increases my respect for him. Electoral officers were looking for a Bill that was much more comprehensive and wrapped up a whole range of issues; they were looking to bring together existing practices in one piece of legislation, and to look at new challenges that they faced. Those challenges are not reflected in  the Bill.
On the amendments, one of the main concerns about the operation of the Electoral Commission that the Government seem to identify is that it needs more direction by way of a Government ministerial statement. That was not part of any of the evidence that we heard from electoral administrators. This goes to the heart of the independence of the electoral administration of this country. That is why people are fearful. I have ranted on this before, and do not want to go into the arguments again about our being on a slippery slope to something that could be quite dangerous. However, if there is to be a statement from the Secretary of State, which I think is completely wrong, there needs to be at least some acknowledgement by the Government that there should be more of a role for Parliament in drafting it.
I want to ask the Minister a question, and I will give way if she can respond. Did I hear correctly that the statement will be dealt with by the affirmative procedure, but not the super-affirmative procedure? Can she clarify that by way of intervention?

Kemi Badenoch: Yes, I am happy to confirm it is the affirmative procedure.

John Martin McDonnell: We introduced the super-affirmative procedure about a decade ago, I think, and it enables the House to amend the statement. What happens under the super-affirmative procedure is that the Minister publishes the statement, there is consultation, the Parliament comments on that, and then the Minister brings back the statement in the light of those comments. Actually, it works. If we look at past practice, what has happened is that even when there has been considerable dispute, the Government and the Secretary of State have usually been able to amend the statement and we have reached consensus. I urge the Government to follow that procedure, rather than the “take it or leave it” of the affirmative procedure.
We raised this issue in the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee with the Secretary of State. With the Government majority as it is, “take it or leave it” means that the Secretary of State is dictating terms to the Electoral Commission and therefore undermining the independence of the commission, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said in quoting the letter from the commissioners themselves.
In another debate on another matter some years ago, people on the Government Benches—I thought it was interesting and constructive—said, “When you legislate for this, you have to legislate for your worst scenario.” Someone stood up and said, “Just think if John McDonnell was in power.” I therefore just say this: what we legislate for today might well be done in good faith by Government Members, but we have to guarantee in legislation for the future at least some form of level of practice that we can all support. I disagree with the whole concept of the statement, which undermines the commission’s independence. If we are to have one, at least give us the opportunity to have a proper debate and amend the statement before it is formally agreed.
My second point is about ID. On PACAC, we could not find evidence of large-scale electoral fraud. To address the point that the hon. Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) was making time and time again very eloquently, and at times with some amusement, the issue around it is that if we cannot find the evidence, it might still be happening. We therefore have to make a judgment when legislating as to whether the remedy we are introducing will cause more harm than the problem we are addressing. That is a subjective judgment.
A number of us have come to the view that, no matter how many times we have trawled for evidence of large-scale electoral fraud, we could not find the evidence that there were not sufficient powers to deal with the issue. The only time there was a real problem was Tower Hamlets. There was a special investigation, and special measures were taken, and I hope and believe the problem has been properly addressed. My worry is that the remedy we are introducing will suppress votes, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and will do greater harm than the harm we see at the moment, which is relatively minuscule, but there we are—that is a judgment.

Tom Randall: I enjoy serving with the right hon. Gentleman on PACAC. As a footnote to what he is saying, one of the concerns I have, which is shared by many—I know we divided on this in the Committee, and I found myself in a minority of one—is that allegations of offences are not properly investigated by the police. He might consider that to be a separate issue. As another footnote, he mentioned Tower Hamlets. Next week, we find ourselves in the horrible situation that Lutfur Rahman, who was the man who perpetrated all that electoral fraud, is on the ballot paper in Tower Hamlets. It is a fact that these problems have only been investigated to an extent, it seems.

John Martin McDonnell: That is a valid point. Rather than change legislation, which could introduce a remedy that does more harm than good, it is a matter of looking at how the existing system is working to ensure proper resources for investigation. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the individual—I will not name them—is about whether the sanctions were severe enough to prevent such a return. That is the way forward on all that.
The other aspect is about the list of alternative provisions that the Lords have come up with. If the Government had looked at them and said, “Okay, we’ll accept some and not others,” that would have been a better approach, because it would have demonstrated an open mind to work towards something that I think could operate  effectively, even though I oppose the whole concept of the use of ID as a result of this legislation. The Government did not even do that, however. To reject the list wholesale demonstrates that they have dug themselves into a hole. I think that we will have to come back to a new piece of electoral legislation in due course that does exactly what the returning officers wanted and consolidates our electoral registration and also remedies some of the unfortunately difficult parts of this legislation.
Those difficult parts could be quite dangerous. I caution about the issue around suppression. I stood for election in my constituency in ’92 when poll tax had been introduced and 5,000 people dropped off the register there—by the sound of it, most of them were Labour voters because I lost by 54 votes. That demonstrates that, if necessary, people will drop out of the system, which worries me. It is not so much that the votes go missing but that those people become distant from the democratic process. They do not engage and, if they do not engage once or twice, it is very difficult for them to re-engage. That is why what seems like relatively minor procedural legislation could have a dramatic effect, particularly in certain constituencies, and could be quite dangerous in the hands of future Governments. I urge the Government to think again on that.

Michael Fabricant: I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest. A constituent of mine wrote from a church to say that a number of her colleagues in the church are too old so they do not have passports or driving licences. I looked on the Government website and it would seem that local government can issue photo ID cards. Does he not think that to achieve the democracy that he and I want, it is incumbent on local government—although I hate to throw things at it—to ensure that such people get voter ID cards and to publicise that they are available?

John Martin McDonnell: Two things on that: first, the hon. Gentleman is right to make us wary of putting even more responsibility on local government given its financial situation; and secondly, those cards have to be applied for, which is another process to go through that becomes costly. The hon. Member for Gedling intervened; it looks as though only 70% of people will actually do that, so we are still looking at a number of people dropping out of the system altogether.
That is why, with other colleagues, we are looking at what else people will have that they could use and why I thought that the list in Lords amendment 86 was constructive. There might be elements of that about which the Government think, “Well, that’s a bit iffy,” but I would rather that they had come back and said, “Well, let’s rule these ones out but accept the others.” They did not, which for me undermines their argument that they are trying to construct a legislation that will work effectively to ensure maximum democratic participation.
I am trying to be ultra-reasonable here, because people can lose their temper about this sort of legislation. My view is that whatever ping-pong takes place now, the two elements that we are talking about could be easily remedied. I want them to be dropped altogether, but if the Government will not drop them, then on the statement we should use a super-affirmative resolution process, and on the voter ID stuff they should at least look at  some of the mechanisms and the list that the House of Lords has put forward, because several of the items are perfectly valid for their use. I will leave it at that.

Jim Shannon: It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate. I wish to speak to Lords amendments 106 to 109, as they pertain to local elections in Northern Ireland and elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I totally agree with what the Minister said earlier, in particular about photographic ID. We have had that in Northern Ireland for a number of years, and it has proven to be successful. I understand exactly the principles of why it is important. All a polling card confirms is the name and address on it; it does not confirm anything else. That is why I believe photo ID is critical.
In Northern Ireland, someone can use a passport, a driving licence, a SmartPass or a war disablement pass, because they all contain someone’s name and address and also their photograph. The Minister is absolutely right that those are methods of doing this. We also have another method—it goes back to what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) mentioned in his intervention on the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)—and that is electoral identification. Because we have an election coming up in Northern Ireland, people are coming in almost every day of the week to be registered so that they can use that electoral ID, with a photograph, which is recognised and issued by the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland. It is done not by local government but centrally, by the Electoral Commission. Those are examples of why voter ID is important—because it works.

Michael Fabricant: I, too, am anxious that we do not see people not voting because of the problem identified by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s experience that in Northern Ireland, people do not vote because of the need for voter ID, or is that not an issue in practice?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He poses a question, but he also poses a solution. We both know what the solutions are, and clearly the Minister does too.

Gavin Robinson: There has been no discernible drop-off in voter turnout as a result of the requirement for photographic ID in Northern Ireland. I looked up the turnout figures in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington, and they are sitting at around 60% with no voter ID; in my constituency in Northern Ireland, where voter ID is required, turnout is higher. Voter ID has not had a discernible impact. I have been entirely frustrated during the passage of the Bill with the reticence from Labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that that has no factual basis and has not been borne out in reality whatsoever?

Jim Shannon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I totally agree with him.
I looked through some of the things referred to in Lords amendment 86 as a “specified document”. Nearly half of them do not have any photographic ID. I could  lift the cheque book of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), take it down to the polling station and pretend to be him, when that is absolutely not true, because that is one of the documents listed. This does not work with documents without photographic ID, so I come back to the point I made at the beginning—and I thank the Minister very much for setting the scene.
Sometimes I wonder about change. When the seatbelt legislation came in, we probably fought against that because it was an attack on our liberty, but we all wear a seatbelt now because it is the norm. When helmets were made compulsory for motorbike riders, some of us thought that was an attack on our liberty, but now people wear a helmet on a motorbike all the time. If photo ID comes in, it will be the same—it will be accepted—because the Government have a process that makes it simple and achievable. When electoral ID was first introduced in Northern Ireland, there was a £2 charge. There is no charge any more. The system works because the Government want it to work; they want people to go and vote. That is what this process has to be about—encouraging people to go and vote and use their franchise whenever they can.
I want to comment on some of the things that have been flagged up over time. It is important to feed into the process; while we have photographic ID, there are things that sometimes crop up in the process, and it is always good to exchange those things. I know that the Minister is always keen to see what we are doing across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but in particular in Northern Ireland.
On voter ID, we have had photographic ID in Northern Ireland for some time. We encourage people to be paperless at work and to bank online, so I look at the requirements and wonder how people can provide a bank statement that is not a print-off. The problems are real.
When we consider the amendments on voter ID, we must take the timeline into account. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), said—I was going to intervene on him—when an election is called, people are spurred on to change their address, to notify or register at their address or indeed to register to vote. All the pressure at that time is on the electoral office, which needs to be able to respond to that surge in a positive fashion. Will the Minister reassure us through the Bill that staff will be made available to deal with that surge? We can look at the passport issue that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), spoke about in the urgent question, where extra staff were employed and a million passports were processed in one month. It can be done, but we need to ensure that we have a process for that.
I have voters who sent information and were contacted by the electoral office 10 days later to say that the information was incorrect, but the deadline had passed. How can that sometimes be the voter’s fault? Again, I feed that into the process to try to conduct on thoughts on how we can improve the system. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) will also pursue those things back home. There must be a deadline, but there must also be a time for information  provision before the deadline so that, if people have more information to feed into the process or have inadvertently not included something that they were supposed to, there is still time to work through that and ensure that they can vote.
Why do we do that? The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington is right that we want to encourage people to vote; we do not want to hear them saying that they cannot be bothered or that they do not care. We want them to be part of the process, and the legislation needs to have common sense as its bedrock. There is sometimes overcomplication, so we need legislation to streamline the voting system and not make it hard for normal people with a pen and paper and not with scanners or printers and all the things that those in offices take for granted. That is often the case for many of my constituents. They have a desire to vote but no polling card because of an admin delay that is out of their control. That is just one example of where it can go wrong.
We ask people to use their vote, yet for some that is almost impossible. Back home, we have Northern Ireland Assembly elections, and—my hon. Friend will confirm this—a large number of elderly and ill voters have had their postal vote denied because they did not have a digital registration number on their application. We introduce some of this digital stuff, but there is a generation who do not understand how the system works, how to register or what digital actually means—I say that respectfully and I am one of them.

Gavin Robinson: True luddite, Jim.

Jim Shannon: Many people cannot follow it, and I suspect that I am one of them.
The denial letter is sent with the DRN on it. Again, the elderly and ill people ask, “What does that DRN mean?” I say positively and constructively to the Minister that I believe she will replicate what we have done in Northern Ireland and probably do it better, having learnt from some of the mistakes made back home. How do I explain to an 87-year-old woman—I will not mention her name—that the electoral office needs information that she did not know that she had and that, because she has been denied her vote at this time, I will have to borrow a wheelchair to take her down to vote? We will do that on the day, and she has not left her home in two years. I say that because the digital process was lost on that lady, and it is lost on many others.
The digital registration number is essential according to the legislation, yet it means nothing in practice. She had used her national insurance number for the last 65 years of her life, yet all of a sudden that is not what the electoral office wants. She understands that, but she does not understand what the DRN is. Again, that is about looking at how we can make the system better.
I believe we are overcomplicating the system, and it is the ordinary person who is the loser. Those sitting in a room fraudulently filling out postal vote forms know all about DRN—they understand it, but this lady does not. She will make herself ill getting to the polling station because she will not miss her vote. Never mind that she has had a postal vote for that address for  many elections, there is no room in the legislation for common sense.
My fear is that the Lords amendments do not go far enough and complicate matters, which is why I look to the Minister and the Government for suggestions on how to take the issue forward. I welcome Lords amendments 15 to 19, which include explicit reference to voting in secret and “independently”, and would place new statutory duties on the Electoral Commission to draw up new guidance to support an independent and secret vote at the polling station from 2023, consult relevant organisations in the production of that guidance, and hold returning officers to account for following that guidance. However, as the Royal National Institute of Blind People says, the key question will, of course, be whether blind and partially sighted voters have better experiences at polling stations in 2023 and beyond. On that, it is clearly too soon to say.
I know the Minister is keen. I know the comments she has made in the past on ensuring those who are visually impaired have the right to have the same opportunity to vote and a system they understand. I know the Minister wants to make sure that happens, but perhaps she could confirm that that will be the case.
I will conclude with this comment. There is an overarching theme that this legislation may not be hitting. That is to encourage people to vote and not set up hurdle after hurdle for those who are minded to vote. If people want to cast their vote and use their franchise, and if we want to ensure they have that opportunity in whatever way they can—it is right that they should—then I believe this House must ensure that people have that vote. I look forward very much to what the Minister will say. I cast my mind back to our experiences in Northern Ireland and what we have done. Do not feel threatened in any way by photo ID. It works for us; it can work for you.

Kemi Badenoch: I have listened to the debate with interest. As shown by the amendments tabled today in relation to the Electoral Commission, the Government have been receptive to the representations made by parliamentarians across both Houses and have sought to provide reassurance where possible.
Before I conclude, I thought I might pick up on a number of points raised by Members. The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), asked about the purpose of candidates’ addresses. It is right that candidates who live just outside the constituency they are standing for, but who do not wish to disclose their home addresses, are not at a disadvantage because their local connection may not be recognised. Using local authorities is a balanced approach to that, while also protecting their safety. On Report, this was a cross-party amendment, so I know that Opposition Members agree. The option is already available to candidates at local and mayoral elections across local authorities, and we think it is appropriate to extend that option to candidates at parliamentary elections.
The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. New burdens funding will be provided to cover additional costs as a result of the changes, so local authorities will not be required to find it from their existing budgets.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) is no longer in her place, but she made an intervention on the hon. Gentleman about the suppression of ethnic minority voters. She is quite wrong. Her assertion that black voters are less likely to have ID is based on a stereotype that arose in the US and was true  during the Jim Crow era. We do not have Jim Crow in this country. We never did. It is an offensive stereotype. It is not just offensive but wrong to say that ethnic minorities do not have photo ID. All other things being equal, ethnic minority voters in this country are actually more likely to have photographic ID. Speaking for first-generation immigrants like myself—[Interruption.] I am not addressing the hon. Gentleman; I said the hon. Member for Edinburgh West. We should agree across the House that ethnic minorities should not be used as political footballs to make those sorts of silly points when there is no evidence. I am glad that he agrees with me. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Edinburgh West is not in her place.
The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the point about the strategy and policy statement, and he might be pleased with my clarification—I assumed that he was asking about everything in our new provisions on the strategy and policy statement. It will be subject to the approval of the UK Parliament and allow it a greater role in scrutinising the Electoral Commission. In applicable circumstances, the statement will be subject to statutory consultation to allow the views of key stakeholders to be considered before the draft statement is submitted for UK parliamentary approval. I think he will be pleased to hear that we tabled amendments (c), (h), (j) and (k) in lieu, which provide for enhanced parliamentary scrutiny—it is super-affirmative, as he mentioned—of a statement that has been subject to a statutory consultation by providing both Houses, with a supplementary opportunity to consider the draft statement and make representations before it is laid for approval.
However, not all changes to a statement will warrant a full statutory consultation, which is why, in some circumstances—if it is just a minor change—the Secretary of State will be able to disapply the statutory consultation requirement. The Government’s view is that it would be overly burdensome to apply enhanced parliamentary scrutiny to changes that did not warrant a statutory consultation.
The Scottish National party Members, the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), continued the theatrical representations that they have made during all stages of the Bill, repeatedly creating straw men that they could knock down and using so much circular reasoning that my head was spinning. We have covered those points many times, so I will not repeat them again, but I enjoy listening to them in these debates. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), who was excellent in making a lot of rebuttals to the points that they and other members of the Bill Committee made.
I thank the hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who very eloquently and strongly explained that voter turnout in Northern Ireland was not impacted by the introduction of photographic ID. That is yet another straw man. It is not true, and they said it far better than I ever could. The hon. Member for Strangford sought reassurances about a number of measures. I do not have the correct information to do so now, but I will ensure that my officials provide him with a comprehensive response.
I hope, in returning the Bill to their lordships, that hon. Members can send a clear message on the vital importance of ensuring that our elections remain secure, fair, transparent and up to date. The Bill delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to ensure the integrity of our elections and it will protect the right of all citizens to participate in our elections while feeling confident that the vote is theirs and theirs alone. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 215.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 22 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (i) made to the words so restored to the Bill.

Clause 15 - Strategy and policy statement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 23.—(Kemi Badenoch.)

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 213.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (k) made in lieu of Lords amendments 22 and 23.

Schedule 1 - Voter Identification

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 86.—(Kemi Badenoch.)

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 213.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 86 disagreed to.
More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Lords amendments 1 to 21, 24 to 85 and 87 to 126 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 86;
That Kemi Badenoch, Miss Sarah Dines, Duncan Baker, Jacob Young, Alex Norris, Colleen Fletcher and Brendan O’Hara be members of the Committee;
That Kemi Badenoch be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Employment and Training

That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 16 March, be approved.—(Michael Tomlinson.)
Question agreed to.

Rosie Winterton: Under the order of the House agreed yesterday, I may not adjourn the House until any message from the Lords has been received. The House must accordingly be suspended. I would encourage colleagues to keep an eye on the annunciator for the latest information on the expected time to return—it is not clear what time we are expecting any message—but in any event I will also arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed.
Sitting suspended (Order, 26 April).
On resuming—

Nigel Evans: I can notify the House that we are not expecting further consideration of any Lords messages this evening. On that basis, we can proceed with the petitions, but before that Caroline Lucas has a point of order.

Caroline Lucas: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions today, I said that 56 MPs were “under investigation” over allegations of sexual misconduct. I should like to correct the record. I realise now that  I should have said that according to a report in The Sunday Times 56 MPs are facing claims. There is a difference between a complaint being investigated and an investigation of the MP in question. I wanted to make that distinction clear.

Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for that point of order and for forward notice of it. The hon. Lady’s correction will now stand on the record and I am grateful to her for making it in such a speedy manner. I thank her very much.

Angela Rayner: On a  point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 29 March, the House approved a Humble Address that compelled the Government to release to us critical information concerning the Prime Minister’s involvement in the appointment of Lord Lebedev to the other place. That motion set a deadline of 28 days for the Government to comply, and that deadline falls tomorrow. Unless Ministers plan to publish the information imminently, before Prorogation, the Government will not comply with the resolution of this House.
In a recent written answer to me, the Paymaster General suggested that information would be published “in due course”, but did not provide any timetable. This is a serious question of national security and the British public have a right to know if and how an individual of apparent concern to our intelligence services was granted a seat in the heart of our Parliament by the Prime Minister, against security advice. Delaying and dodging transparency undermines trust in politics. On top of the long-delayed Sue Gray report, this pattern of behaviour is an insult to this Chamber and to our constituents.
Mr Deputy Speaker, can you advise me whether it is in order for the Government to refuse to meet the deadline provided in a binding, substantial resolution of this House? What action can be taken by the Chair, or by Members of the House, to ensure that Ministers keep their promises to us, to the Crown and to the British people, to allow us to get to the facts behind the whole murky business?

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. She is right that the terms of the motion agreed by the House on 29 March said that the information requested by the House on this matter ought to be provided
“no later than 28 April”.—[Official Report, 29 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 742.]
Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the right hon. Lady’s concerns. It is for Ministers, in the first instance, to respond to the terms of the motion, but it is for the House to determine whether such a response is adequate.
I suggest that, at this stage, we await further updates from Ministers by the deadline tomorrow, which was set by the House. Should Members wish to pursue the matter further after that, a number of avenues are open to the House, on which the Clerks will be able to advise.

Petition - Derwent Walk

Liz Twist: I rise to present a petition on behalf of my constituents who are members of the Save our Derwent Walk campaign group. Derwent Walk  country park runs through my constituency, from Swalwell, through Winlaton Mill and Lockhaugh, and on to Rowlands Gill. I thank the campaign group for their tireless efforts to retain our magnificent country park. The petitioners state that the walk is under threat of destruction or irrevocable change through the proposal for a permanent transport route linking Consett and Gateshead. In addition to this petition, the campaign group has an online petition of over 25,000 names, from my constituency and beyond.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Blaydon.
Declares that the Derwent Walk is under significant threat of destruction or irrevocable change through the proposal of a permanent transport route linking Consett and Gateshead and/or Newcastle; notes that the walk lies on the former track bed of the Derwent Valley Railway, opening in 1867 and closed in 1962 under Beeching proposals, due to underuse; notes that the walk has since developed, enveloping C2C cycle routes, the National Cycle Network (No. 14) and a country park, and is also the site of a Scheduled Monument, with a vast area covered by the protected status; and further that the proposal of a permanent transport route does not properly account for access for the disabled or the importance of walking and cycling routes.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to accept the concerns of residents, to commit to maintain the integrity of the Derwent Walk, and reject the feasibility study for the above reasons. And furthermore, to discuss the current proposal with members of the ‘Save Our Derwent Walk’ group.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002729]

Petition - Step-free Access for Chinley Station

Robert Largan: I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of High Peak calling for step-free access at Chinley station. My long-standing petition has received overwhelming local support, with over 1,000 signatures. The station has no step-free access for either Manchester or Sheffield-bound trains, meaning that local residents with mobility issues or disabilities cannot access the railway. This must not be allowed to continue. I am encouraged by the national Access for All fund to improve the accessibility of railway stations, and I fully support the funding bid by Northern Rail and by Chinley and Buxworth transport group.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the lack of step-free access at Chinley Station denies access to public transport for many local residents with disabilities.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to note the need for step-free access at Chinley Station and reallocate funding to complete this project following Network Rail’s completion of a viability survey of the station.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002730]

Cotswold District Council: Solar Farms

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Scott Mann.)

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr Deputy Speaker, would you please thank Mr Speaker for granting me this opportunity to raise the matter of Cotswold District Council and funding for solar farms?
The council’s Liberal Democrat administration proposes to borrow a staggering £76.5 million to fund various capital projects. The plans were laid out in a report presented to the council’s capital programme investment board on 24 March 2022 and during a subsequent cabinet meeting on 4 April 2022. The full public document pack is available on CDC’s website.
The problem is that if a local authority is ever put into special financial measures, for example as seen in 2018 when Northamptonshire County Council effectively declared itself bankrupt because it could not pay its bills, it is the taxpayer, via the Government, who always ends up paying for disastrous financial decisions made by local councillors.
So what exactly are these proposals as laid out in the circulated tactical delivery plan? Well, page 66 states that the council wishes to borrow a total of £76.5 million to finance various projects, at the same time exhausting the council’s general reserve fund. The plan envisages that £49.7 million be borrowed to finance climate change and green energy investment projects. The largest of these projects is to buy five solar farm sites for a total of £46.5 million. There is more than sufficient finance in the market to fund these schemes without the council’s intervention. In addition, there are plans to borrow £25 million for investment in a variety of projects described as investments for economic development and asset usage, although further details on these schemes are currently not available.
From the delivery plan setting out the substantial amount of money that the council intends to borrow overall, just one project so far has been approved in this entire programme—a £1.8 million housing loan to contribute to Cottsway Housing, which produces income below target. This is a good thing. Borrowing to invest in social housing would really benefit the people of the Cotswolds. However, this is a comparatively small sum compared with the overall amount that the council proposes to borrow, despite its having tangible benefits for the people of the Cotswolds and the fact that it should be prioritised in the building of homes, especially social housing. I understand that councillors were originally advised that about half the borrowing was for social housing, only to later discover from the plans that only £1.8 million had been allocated.
The total amount of this borrowing is spread over five years. However, according to the plans, it appears that some £50 million is scheduled to be spent next year, as they are showing an income for the following year. If this borrowing occurs, it is equivalent to mortgaging council tax payers in the Cotswolds for a generation. The Liberal Democrat administration says that these investments are green and follow economic growth priorities for the council. So what is wrong with that? Well, there is strict legal guidance that all local authorities must act  with financial probity, including not borrowing excessively in a way that could put the council’s finances at risk. Please could the Minister confirm this in her reply?
We have seen many recent examples of councils losing huge amounts of money in failed investment schemes. For example, Nottingham City Council ultimately lost £30 million of public money in 2015 after it set up and invested in Robin Hood Energy—a localised green energy company that ran into financial difficulties and could not pay its bills. By 2019, the council was forced to bail it out. In 2020, Croydon Council effectively declared itself bankrupt with a £73 million shortfall. It borrowed £545 million during a three-year period to invest in commercial and housing properties. The council invested £30 million in the Croydon Park hotel in 2018-19. A central Government taskforce was sent to oversee an audit in 2020, following these risky property investments and the council ignoring repeated warnings on its dire financial situation, and last year the council had to have a £120 million bailout from the Government.
Only today, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) raised during Prime Minister’s questions the shocking fact that by 2025 Liberal Democrat Eastleigh Borough Council will have a debt of £650 million following investment in property projects. Cotswold District Council hopes to borrow the money from the Public Works Loan Board at 3.3%, making a profit on the loan by obtaining a return of 7.5% from the investment. The problem the council has with this proposal is that in order to curb excessive substantial, and risky, borrowing from the PWLB, I and others on the Public Accounts Committee have recommended to the Government that they prohibit loans in what I call exotic investments. Such projects include solar farms, and even commercial property investments, purely to make a return on the investment. Could the Minister please confirm that bodies would not, under the PWLB’s loan criteria, be eligible for a loan for an investment in a solar farm?
Furthermore, any application to the PWLB must—this is critical to the whole debate—be accompanied by a repayment statement known as a minimum revenue provision, or MRP, setting out the repayment period and how the council will repay the loan on top of paying interest payments. As an illustration, the proposed loan by Cotswold District Council of £76.5 million, repayable over 25 years, would require annual payments of around £3 million per annum. That is purely to pay off the loan, without any interest payments. The plan does not say where the money borrowed will come from, the duration of the loan, nor how the borrowing will be repaid.
I remind the House that the council’s annual core spending was only £11.2 million last year. From that £11.2 million, which needs to pay for all services if there is to be a balanced budget without a deficit, it would need to deduct £3 million for the annual loan repayment. In the financial year 2021-22, the council forecast a budget of £12.55 million; £5.5 million is from council tax, £3.278 million is from business taxes, and the balance of around £4 million is from a variety of Government grants, which are not necessarily recurring. The council’s finances are fairly flimsy in any case. Will the Minister confirm that the size of this loan—£76.5 million—would be totally disproportionate and unaffordable, given the council’s current income, from which loan repayments and interest would have to be deducted?
It seems that the motivation for taking on all this borrowing was the desire to invest in schemes to generate income. However, as other councils doing the same thing have found to their cost, these schemes are highly risky and could make the finances worse, which would pose a considerable risk to the core finances of the whole council. No commercial bank would ever contemplate agreeing to such a loan. Could the Minister confirm that the PWLB will require a repayment schedule for the so-called MRP?
Under the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy code, the council’s financial section 151 officer is required to give advice to councillors about the financial probity of such a large borrowing plan. The section 151 officer can ultimately give a section 114 notice, warning a council that, given the overall state of the council’s finances, the level of borrowing is not sustainable.
Another proposal mooted by the council is issuing green bonds to publicly finance these projects. Securities such as these are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Cotswold District Council anticipates that an issuance programme will be aimed at small investors, although no details are available at this time. Even if the council could begin to sell the bonds in the markets, can the Minister confirm that this form of finance would also come under the financial probity regulations, under which the section 151 officer would have to warn councillors of the effect on the council’s finances of such large borrowing? Furthermore, as a financial instrument, it would have to be authorised by the regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority.
Cotswold District Council has increased council tax by £5, which is a 3.6% increase in the tax bill for residents. That is above the official cap in England of 2.99%—the maximum allowed without a referendum of local council tax payers, and a cap that some 286 councils across England and Wales are exceeding. Given the cost of living squeeze, the council should not look to put up council tax by that much while planning this huge amount of borrowing. It should focus on increasing council tax as little as possible, in order to help people with the cost of living, and should focus on delivering its core strategic services of waste collection and planning, rather than spending our money on feasibility studies.
Although the Government have set some achievable targets under the green agenda, such as bringing all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050, and securing global net zero by mid-century to limit global warming to 1.5°, there is evidence that, faced with the cost of living, people are asking the Government to help with the squeeze on bills by slowing down the increases in green levies. The same applies to the extreme borrowing that is proposed by Cotswold District Council for solar farms.
Worryingly, I do not see any statements from  the council that it is trying to live within its means. Instead, it continually says that the Government are cutting various grants. In fact, in recent years, central Government—the Minister’s Department—have given it significantly more money, as is laid out in the local government settlement, which includes £16.3 billion in settlement funding for local councils in England this financial year. With other grants and an estimate of council tax included, the core spending of councils across England will rise to £54.1 billion, which is an increase of 4.6% on the previous year. There is no  pressure on the council to borrow all this money to increase its income. The settlement will partly help to reverse the trend of council tax accounting for an increasingly large proportion of any council’s spending power.
There is no evidence that the council or councillors have the experience to successfully manage a long-term investment programme of this size and complexity. Delivering a financial plan on the scale that is proposed would require considerable financial expertise in the council, which could be lacking, as the competent long-term financial officer, head of finance and deputy CEO has recently resigned. The Liberal Democrat authority also proposes carrying out the programme before the local elections in May 2023. Even the biggest and best commercial banks would struggle to find suitable investments involving that amount of money, and to do the necessary due diligence on them, in just 12 months.
The proposals by Cotswold District Council to borrow a breathtaking £76.5 million, as stated in the plan circulated to its capital programme investment board and cabinet, clearly demonstrate financial incompetence amounting to a recklessness that has the potential to bankrupt the council. At the very least, it will mortgage the council for the generation to come. I urge Liberal Democrat councillors, in the interest of Cotswolds council tax payers, to think again, and I urge the Government to use all their powers to stop councillors borrowing that unsustainably large amount of money. I thank the Minister for being here to answer my debate.

Kemi Badenoch: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on securing a debate on this important topic. Borrowing rules for local authorities may not be the sort of thing that generate many column inches in the newspapers, but they really matter to the day-to-day workings of local government. In many ways, these rules are the guard rails that help to govern decisions around the investment of public funds, which is why it is vital that hon. Members have as much clarity and transparency as possible on what councils can and cannot do, as well as having the opportunity to challenge and raise instances of what they perceive to be misallocation of funds.
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner on behalf of his constituents and I applaud him for bringing the issue to the House today for discussion. First, he asked whether the borrowing in question was within the lending rules of the Public Works Loan Board. Under Public Works Loan Board guidance, a project for service delivery includes education, highways and transport, social care, public health, culture, environmental and regulatory services; police, fire and rescue; and central services. I can confirm that projects related to climate change are included in that.
I make it clear that the Government understand that although borrowing is necessary to deliver local priorities, it does carry risk, so it is important that it is done sensibly to keep local authorities’ finances sustainable. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that in recent years, a small minority of local authorities have taken excessive and unnecessary risks with taxpayers’ money. Those risks have backfired. That has been all too visible in the high-profile cases of councils that have become  too indebted or have made substantial investments in projects that have ultimately proved too risky or too large.
On my hon Friend’s points about the scale of the borrowing that Cotswold District Council intends to do in comparison with its annual income, it goes without saying that disproportionate levels of debt expose councils to financial risk. It is not just the size of the debt that can create issues; some authorities invest in novel activities outside their areas of experience or expertise, which can lead to financial loss when the investment is mismanaged. My hon. Friend will remember what happened with Robin Hood Energy, Bristol Energy and Together Energy. While councils are sometimes very well meaning in trying to tackle important issues such as achieving net zero, we cannot forget that the energy market can be volatile, and councils need to be sure that they are getting the right advice when proceeding with such investments.
That is not to say that local authorities should not undertake borrowing. I want to make it clear that the Government recognise that commercial investments can be necessary and appropriate when made sensibly. Sensible investment can play an important role in helping us to power forward on issues that are central to the Government’s agenda, be they levelling up, net zero or building the homes that the country needs.
On my hon Friend’s point that the Government should stop Cotswold District Council borrowing this money, as he will be aware, councils have responsibility for setting out capital strategies for their area, and they will be held accountable by their communities. Local leaders should understand local issues and prioritise accordingly; it is the Government’s expectation that they should be able to make decisions that reflect the needs of their communities.
In making these decisions, every local authority has a duty to comply with the prudential framework by making sure that its plans are prudent, affordable and sustainable. As my hon. Friend highlighted, taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for preventable mistakes. The Government will, of course, step in where there is clear evidence that local authorities are not complying with their legal duties or acting in the best interests of their taxpayers.
Our focus, as my hon. Friend might expect, is on making sure that we have a system that is genuinely fit for purpose.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the guidance to the Public Works Loan Board has recently been changed so that no investment that is made purely to increase return is allowed? Will she also confirm that any application to the PWLB will have to be accompanied by a statement including a minimum loan guarantee repayment, so that it is crystal clear to everybody in the Cotswold district how these loans will be repaid?

Kemi Badenoch: I can confirm that my hon. Friend is correct on the first point. The council cannot invest purely for profit, but because its investment has a net zero element, it would qualify under the guidance. However, it remains to be seen exactly how the proposal will manifest itself. I cannot confirm the second point at   the Dispatch Box, but I will get officials to write to him formally with a comprehensive answer. He is absolutely right to raise the point that there is guidance out there that should ensure that councils invest prudently.
In July 2021, we set out what might be called a multi-pronged approach to supporting our role as steward of local investments by improving local decision making and capability, and by developing proportionate tools for intervention, when that might be needed. We continue to work with the sector to implement our proposals and keep the system under continuous review.
I turn to my hon. Friend’s point that the council lacks the experience to successfully manage the programme. To be clear, when local authorities make decisions to borrow to invest in areas such as solar farms, it is important that they have the relevant expertise in the market, and that they have the governance in place to challenge the parties and people running the projects if they are being mismanaged or appear to be falling behind schedule. The council will need to satisfy itself, taxpayers and the electorate that it has the necessary expertise to manage complex projects without exposing itself to excessive risk.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again; she has been generous. Considering that there is more than adequate private finance to fund these solar farms, is it right that a local authority should invest in such a risky venture?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He is right that the Government should not be competing too much with the private sector, but it is not for me to determine what a council should or should not do. Councils are elected and have mandates, but they must be responsible in spending taxpayers’ money. We do not want, as a corollary of that, the Government intervening too much in councils’ decisions. We have empowered councils to do the right thing and, as I said, we expect them to satisfy themselves and taxpayers that they have the necessary expertise to manage complex projects and not expose themselves to excessive risk. We would expect any council to comply with good practice guidance from not just the PWLB but organisations such as the Chartered Institute for Public Finance and Accountancy, and to take on board lessons learned from other authorities. We want to support local authorities in investing responsibly. In March—my hon. Friend may not be aware of this—we commissioned a review of the governance and capability of local authority investment and borrowing, and that review will report later this year.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the House, and for raising this case. It is important that local authorities remain financially sustainable, and the Government take that seriously. If he would like to raise any further points, I will be happy to write to him with further details. Members from across the House care about local accountability and protecting taxpayers’ interests. I am sure that Members will agree that that needs to be achieved in the right way, and that local authorities’ spending needs to be sustainable and not beyond their means.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.